"This connection is untrusted"
"This Connection is Untrusted" message only comes up in SeaMonkey, not on Firefox. All of a sudden I can't use SeaMonkey anymore to browse and it is my all time favorite browser. The only thing that will load is the home page (yahoo.com)I have set up. I am running the newest SeaMonkey download and my OS is Windows 10 Home on my Lenovo Ideapad. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? Thanks for any help. Neeks ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Message display in Linux
Petr Voralek wrote: Hello! On Wednesday, 25.01.2017 18:32(+0100) *Nfn Smith* wrote, and I quote (in part): Any idea of what's happening? What addons do you use? I recently had a similar problem with the incompatible version of Mnenhy... I believe that those two threads can still be traced on this newsgroup... Mnenhy is the problem. I quit using that years ago in my Windows profile. I did see the discussion in the newsgroup, but didn't pay attention to it. I forgot that I still had it active in the Linux profile, and when I disable that, the problem goes away. For what it's worth, I was looking at an infrequently-used profile in Thunderbird, and saw the same problem. A check of the add-ons list shows that I have mnenhy installed there, as well. Problem goes away when I disable. Thanks for the tip. Smith ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
Lucas Levrel wrote on 27-01-17 22:40: Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit : Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to "presque aussi bien/bon" ? No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", just as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare not say it is". Exactly, you have well understood the background of my thought. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: BIG IMAGE
EE wrote on 27-01-17 21:46: Pete wrote: 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 If it is a jpeg file, save it with 100% instead of using the default. You lose less data that way. It was saved with 100% ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Plain-text formatting
EE wrote on 27-01-17 22:08: Ray_Net wrote: 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 ! If you have a web page, you could just put a link to it in the message. That way, plain text would be fine. NO, I dont have a web page I show a part of a web page that I did not manage, and I show what it should be in the mail, not with creating a web page on the web. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
On 27/01/2017 22:40, Lucas Levrel wrote: > Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit : > >> Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to >> "presque aussi bien/bon" ? > > No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", just > as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare not say > it is". > >> So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not >> as good as Y; is that correct? > > Rather: you were not expecting X to be as good as Y, but it turns out to > be as good, or maybe even slightly better. I see. Thanks for the clarifications ;-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Message display in Linux
Hello! On Wednesday, 25.01.2017 18:32(+0100) *Nfn Smith* wrote, and I quote (in part): > Any idea of what's happening? What addons do you use? I recently had a similar problem with the incompatible version of Mnenhy... I believe that those two threads can still be traced on this newsgroup... -- Petr Voralek(JabberID: na...@jabber.cz) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
Le 27 janvier 2017, à 19:32, Mason83 a écrit : Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to "presque aussi bien/bon" ? No. There is an intended, amusing contradiction in "presque mieux", just as in "almost better". This somehow says "it is better but I dare not say it is". So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not as good as Y; is that correct? Rather: you were not expecting X to be as good as Y, but it turns out to be as good, or maybe even slightly better. -- LL Ἕν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα (Σωκράτης) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Plain-text formatting
Ray_Net wrote: 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 ! If you have a web page, you could just put a link to it in the message. That way, plain text would be fine. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: BIG IMAGE
Pete wrote: 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 If it is a jpeg file, save it with 100% instead of using the default. You lose less data that way. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
On 27/01/2017 17:54, Ray_Net wrote: > Mason83 wrote on 27-01-17 16:08: >> On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote: >> >>> then X is nearly better than >> >> "nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-) > > Sorry, my mother language is french and I use "Presque mieux" than > Who can be translated as "Almost better" Did you better understand > this ? Would you say "presque mieux" is equivalent to "presque aussi bien/bon" ? So, if "X est presque mieux que Y", then X is in fact not as good as Y; is that correct? Regards. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
Mason83 wrote on 27-01-17 16:08: On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote: then X is nearly better than "nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-) Sorry, my mother language is french and I use "Presque mieux" than Who can be translated as "Almost better" Did you better understand this ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
On 27/01/2017 15:10, Ray_Net wrote: > then X is nearly better than "nearly better" is a hard concept to grasp ;-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
THANKS A LOT - Re: BIG IMAGE
Ray_Net wrote on 27-01-17 01:51: I have a big image 1852 pixels x 1852 pixels When I use in html width="79" 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 ? Thanks a lot for all the ideas, finally I used Irfanview to resample to 600x600 and I Sharpen before the save. So now from 1852x1852 = 2.042 MB to 600x600 = 298KB then displaying with the "height="79" width="79"" option is nearly better than SM rendering of the big picture. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: BIG IMAGE
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 27-01-17 04:13: 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." Yes, 2.042 KB is nearly 2 MB ... sorryr to be European :-) ___ 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
On 1/26/2017 7:12 AM, Steve Dunn wrote: 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. Thanks. :) FYI from my SeaMonkey v2.46 web browser: "ou are here: Home > Projects > SSL Client Test SSL/TLS Capabilities of Your Browser User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 Other User Agents » Protocol Support Your user agent has good protocol support. Your user agent supports TLS 1.2, which is the best available protocol version at the moment. Logjam Vulnerability Your user agent is not vulnerable. For more information about the Logjam attack, please go to weakdh.org. To test manually, click here. Your user agent is not vulnerable if it fails to connect to the site. FREAK Vulnerability Your user agent is not vulnerable. For more information about the FREAK attack, please go to www.freakattack.com. To test manually, click here. Your user agent is not vulnerable if it fails to connect to the site. POODLE Vulnerability Your user agent is not vulnerable. For more information about the POODLE attack, please read this blog post. Protocol Features Protocols TLS 1.2 Yes TLS 1.1 Yes TLS 1.0 Yes SSL 3 No SSL 2 No Cipher Suites (in order of preference) TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02b) Forward Secrecy 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) Forward Secrecy128 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (0xcca9) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (0xcca8) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc02c) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) Forward Secrecy256 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc00a) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc009) Forward Secrecy 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc013) Forward Secrecy 128 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x33) Forward Secrecy 128 TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x39) Forward Secrecy 256 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0x2f) 128 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0x35) 256 TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA (0xa) 112 (1) When a browser supports SSL 2, its SSL 2-only suites are shown only on the very first connection to this site. To see the suites, close all browser windows, then open this exact page directly. Don't refresh. Protocol Details Server Name Indication (SNI)Yes Secure RenegotiationYes TLS compression No Session tickets Yes OCSP stapling Yes Signature algorithms SHA256/RSA, SHA384/RSA, SHA512/RSA, SHA1/RSA, SHA256/ECDSA, SHA384/ECDSA, SHA512/ECDSA, SHA1/ECDSA, SHA384/DSA, SHA256/DSA, SHA1/DSA Elliptic curves secp256r1, secp384r1, secp521r1 Next Protocol Negotiation Yes Application Layer Protocol Negotiation Yes h2 spdy/3.1 http/1.1 SSL 2 handshake compatibility No Mixed Content Handling Mixed Content Tests Images Passive Yes CSS Active No Scripts Active No XMLHttpRequest Active No WebSockets Active No Frames
