Re: CaCert root certificates not in SeaMonkey distribution

[Dirk Munk via support-seamonkey]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:



Dirk Munk wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Which version?

2.53, 64 bit, build 20190917130005




Dirk Munk wrote:
The CaCert root certificates are not in the SeaMonkey distribution. 
That's a bit sad if you want to use their mail certificates for 
instance, or if web sites use CaCert certifcates. Can the 
developers add these root certificates please?




> 2.53, 64 bit, build 20190917130005

Ancient. Please update to 2.53.1 beta 1 or the unofficial 2.53.2 pre. 
These have the latest NSS Releases included.


FRG

Updated to 2.53.2 beta 1, seems to be fine. I guess 2.57 is a bit too 
adventurous ?

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

Re: CaCert root certificates not in SeaMonkey distribution

[Dirk Munk via support-seamonkey]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Which version?

2.53, 64 bit, build 20190917130005




Dirk Munk wrote:
The CaCert root certificates are not in the SeaMonkey distribution. 
That's a bit sad if you want to use their mail certificates for 
instance, or if web sites use CaCert certifcates. Can the developers 
add these root certificates please?


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

CaCert root certificates not in SeaMonkey distribution

[Dirk Munk via support-seamonkey]

The CaCert root certificates are not in the SeaMonkey distribution. 
That's a bit sad if you want to use their mail certificates for 
instance, or if web sites use CaCert certifcates. Can the developers add 
these root certificates please?

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

How is the WG9s SeaMonkey 2.57 Build

[Dirk Munk]

The question says it all, how is the WG9s SeaMonkey 2.57 Build, is it 
stable enough to be used?

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

Re: testbed setup

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/3/19, David H. Durgee  wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

With all the changes I made so far, Seamonkey is unrecognisable fast now.

Have you done any testing to optimize these settings?

I installed the apache2 package on a debian system at home & put a
link to a 23MB jpg on the index.html page

Create a brand new profile for seamonkey, click on Tools / Web
Development / Toggle Tools &  select the network tab so I can see how
long it takes for SM to load the file

tl;dr  loading a big file from my local network isn't a good test.
I'm open to suggestions on how to make it a better test (ie.
demonstrate how changing settings changes the experience)


Earthlights.jpg( 23,174,231 bytes)
   browser.cache.memory.capacity200,000 (default)
2047 ms
1953
1953
1953
1969

   browser.cache.memory.capacity  1,000,000
   browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size  -1
1968 ms
1968
1968
1953
1968
   click back, DO NOT click tools / clear private data
no time, Transferr... cached  Size 0 B

   browser.cache.disk.enable  false
1953
1952
1968
1968
1968

Lee


Web pages usually consist out of many small objects, all those objects 
must be stored in the cache(s). In real life the caches(s) may contain 
thousands of objects, so you have to emulate such a situation.


Pipelining for instance is there to lessen the influence of latency, so 
your test set-up must include latency.


Setting up a proper test environment is not at all easy, it seems even 
Mozilla hasn't been able to do that. Trying to understand what is going 
on, making educated guesses etc. is a better method at the moment. With 
that approach I came to these improvements, that can be noticed by any 
one who implements them. I think the results will be the same on all 
platforms.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:


Dirk Munk wrote:

Pipelining can cause data to arrive faster. That may not be what 
you wish for if the network buffers have not been increased. If

I were you, I would start with those, since you had the CPU problems.


You may be right. I just chose that because there was an easy UI 
control at Edit | Preferences | Advanced | HTTP Networking.


Interesting. The pipeline setting is not in the Windows version of 
these preferences.


What version do you have? (your UA string doesn't say) It's in my SM 
2.49 for Windows.




I'm running 2.53 at the moment.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings 
Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that 
once or twice per day.


You may not have used the word "stability" in the bodies of your 
messages, but when you put "stability" in the subject line and 
"crash" in the body it's clearly what you're talking about.


My experience with SM has been different in that it has crashed 
only a couple of times a year, usually for nonreproducible 
reasons. By "crash" I mean "terminated without authorization," not 
"stopped producing output and accepting user input," which has 
been happening several times a day. I call that "hanging," because 
the program is still running according to Windows Task Manager 
(which usually reports "Not Responding"), and resumes normal 
operation after two to five minutes. At those times, if I keep 
demanding a response with mouse clicks, Windows will prompt me to 
wait or close the unresponsive program. If I choose to wait, SM 
will eventually revive. Once it does, a normal shutdown and 
restart of the program (including automatic clearing of cache and 
cookies) will clean out the crud and allow it to perform well for 
a while.


Since I increased the allowed memory cache size about a week ago, 
the hangs have decreased drastically in frequency, but have not 
been entirely eliminated. If I really push it, I can still get it 
to hang occasionally. But it's a lot more pleasant to run.


For other users, I suspect some sources of hangs and crashes are 
related to badly written ad scripts, but my ad blocker takes care 
of most of those. And of course if I choose to walk on the 
sketchier side of the Internet, it's easy to find sites that will 
serve malware and obnoxious popups insisting that I need to 
install their anti-malware programs. (Right. I was born yesterday. 
Well, I guess "there's one born every minute.") But none of that 
is SeaMonkey's fault, and a decent internet security program will 
take care of that.




Why don't you try all the other settings as well, and see what 
happens. The network cache settings dramatically reduced CPU 
cycles, and disabling the disk cache made Seamonkey much faster.


Proper experimental methodology would be to try them one at a time, 
so we can tell which ones had which results. I did enable pipelining 
yesterday; we'll see what that does.


Pipelining can cause data to arrive faster. That may not be what you 
wish for if the network buffers have not been increased. If I were 
you, I would start with those, since you had the CPU problems.


You may be right. I just chose that because there was an easy UI 
control at Edit | Preferences | Advanced | HTTP Networking.


Interesting. The pipeline setting is not in the Windows version of these 
preferences.





I have a fast connection (101.32 Mbps down, 118.93 up just now 
according to speedtest.net), so I don't really need data to arrive 
faster; as you say I need SM to handle it better.




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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

David H. Durgee wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings
Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that
once or twice per day.

You may not have used the word "stability" in the bodies of your
messages, but when you put "stability" in the subject line and
"crash" in the body it's clearly what you're talking about.

My experience with SM has been different in that it has crashed only
a couple of times a year, usually for nonreproducible reasons. By
"crash" I mean "terminated without authorization," not "stopped
producing output and accepting user input," which has been happening
several times a day. I call that "hanging," because the program is
still running according to Windows Task Manager (which usually
reports "Not Responding"), and resumes normal operation after two to
five minutes. At those times, if I keep demanding a response with
mouse clicks, Windows will prompt me to wait or close the
unresponsive program. If I choose to wait, SM will eventually revive.
Once it does, a normal shutdown and restart of the program (including
automatic clearing of cache and cookies) will clean out the crud and
allow it to perform well for a while.

Since I increased the allowed memory cache size about a week ago, the
hangs have decreased drastically in frequency, but have not been
entirely eliminated. If I really push it, I can still get it to hang
occasionally. But it's a lot more pleasant to run.

For other users, I suspect some sources of hangs and crashes are
related to badly written ad scripts, but my ad blocker takes care of
most of those. And of course if I choose to walk on the sketchier
side of the Internet, it's easy to find sites that will serve malware
and obnoxious popups insisting that I need to install their
anti-malware programs. (Right. I was born yesterday. Well, I guess
"there's one born every minute.") But none of that is SeaMonkey's
fault, and a decent internet security program will take care of that.


Why don't you try all the other settings as well, and see what
happens. The network cache settings dramatically reduced CPU cycles,
and disabling the disk cache made Seamonkey much faster.

Proper experimental methodology would be to try them one at a time, so
we can tell which ones had which results. I did enable pipelining
yesterday; we'll see what that does.


After trying them one at a time it would next make sense to try them in
combinations to see which have synergy with others.  It might be that
some are only effective in combination with other settings, while some
have similar impacts and might not reinforce or might even interfere
with one another.

Unfortunately much of this can probably only be determined by
experimentation and is likely to vary from Windows to linux to OS X
platforms.

Dave


It all starts with memory, memory, memory. The second thing is to avoid 
disk access.


That is what you see in these settings.

First we increase the memory cache.It gives Seamonkey plenty or room to 
cache all the web pages we want to see.


Then we disable the disk cache. With sufficient cache memory allocated, 
we don't need it. It speeds up Seamonkey dramatically, even if teh disk 
is a SSD.


Then we increase the network cache buffers. Seamonkey can now handle big 
chunks of data in one time, and isn't interrupted all of the time 
because the network buffer space is exhausted.


And finally we increase the pipeline request count. We In one request we 
ask for maximal 64 items on a web page, they will be send to us one 
after the other with great speed. The network cache buffers can catch them.


So, all of these parameters already are connected to each other.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings 
Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that 
once or twice per day.


You may not have used the word "stability" in the bodies of your 
messages, but when you put "stability" in the subject line and 
"crash" in the body it's clearly what you're talking about.


My experience with SM has been different in that it has crashed only 
a couple of times a year, usually for nonreproducible reasons. By 
"crash" I mean "terminated without authorization," not "stopped 
producing output and accepting user input," which has been happening 
several times a day. I call that "hanging," because the program is 
still running according to Windows Task Manager (which usually 
reports "Not Responding"), and resumes normal operation after two to 
five minutes. At those times, if I keep demanding a response with 
mouse clicks, Windows will prompt me to wait or close the 
unresponsive program. If I choose to wait, SM will eventually 
revive. Once it does, a normal shutdown and restart of the program 
(including automatic clearing of cache and cookies) will clean out 
the crud and allow it to perform well for a while.


Since I increased the allowed memory cache size about a week ago, 
the hangs have decreased drastically in frequency, but have not been 
entirely eliminated. If I really push it, I can still get it to hang 
occasionally. But it's a lot more pleasant to run.


For other users, I suspect some sources of hangs and crashes are 
related to badly written ad scripts, but my ad blocker takes care of 
most of those. And of course if I choose to walk on the sketchier 
side of the Internet, it's easy to find sites that will serve 
malware and obnoxious popups insisting that I need to install their 
anti-malware programs. (Right. I was born yesterday. Well, I guess 
"there's one born every minute.") But none of that is SeaMonkey's 
fault, and a decent internet security program will take care of that.




Why don't you try all the other settings as well, and see what 
happens. The network cache settings dramatically reduced CPU cycles, 
and disabling the disk cache made Seamonkey much faster.


Proper experimental methodology would be to try them one at a time, so 
we can tell which ones had which results. I did enable pipelining 
yesterday; we'll see what that does.


Pipelining can cause data to arrive faster. That may not be what you 
wish for if the network buffers have not been increased. If I were you, 
I would start with those, since you had the CPU problems.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings 
Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that once 
or twice per day.


You may not have used the word "stability" in the bodies of your 
messages, but when you put "stability" in the subject line and "crash" 
in the body it's clearly what you're talking about.


My experience with SM has been different in that it has crashed only a 
couple of times a year, usually for nonreproducible reasons. By 
"crash" I mean "terminated without authorization," not "stopped 
producing output and accepting user input," which has been happening 
several times a day. I call that "hanging," because the program is 
still running according to Windows Task Manager (which usually reports 
"Not Responding"), and resumes normal operation after two to five 
minutes. At those times, if I keep demanding a response with mouse 
clicks, Windows will prompt me to wait or close the unresponsive 
program. If I choose to wait, SM will eventually revive. Once it does, 
a normal shutdown and restart of the program (including automatic 
clearing of cache and cookies) will clean out the crud and allow it to 
perform well for a while.


Since I increased the allowed memory cache size about a week ago, the 
hangs have decreased drastically in frequency, but have not been 
entirely eliminated. If I really push it, I can still get it to hang 
occasionally. But it's a lot more pleasant to run.


For other users, I suspect some sources of hangs and crashes are 
related to badly written ad scripts, but my ad blocker takes care of 
most of those. And of course if I choose to walk on the sketchier side 
of the Internet, it's easy to find sites that will serve malware and 
obnoxious popups insisting that I need to install their anti-malware 
programs. (Right. I was born yesterday. Well, I guess "there's one 
born every minute.") But none of that is SeaMonkey's fault, and a 
decent internet security program will take care of that.




Why don't you try all the other settings as well, and see what happens. 
The network cache settings dramatically reduced CPU cycles, and 
disabling the disk cache made Seamonkey much faster.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 3/2/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 3/1/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

The next set of parameters I've adjusted are network buffers.

1. network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
the default setting is 32 kB, and that corresponds with the buffer 
size

of very old TCP/IP stacks.

2. network.buffer.cache.count = 128
The number of buffers is increased from 24 to 128.

The total network buffer space has increased from 24 x 32 kB = 768 
kB,

to 128 x 256 kB = 32,768 kB. The result is that the CPU activity for
Seamonkey has dropped dramatically, by about half.


You might be right.

I tried setting network.buffer.cache.size set to 262144, exit (i have
SM set to clear everything at exit), start SM again, start logging
(about:networking / logging), goto

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Fronalpstock_big.jpg 



grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5488
 and get lots of
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4

   ... snip ...

exit SM, edit prefs.js to remove the network.buffer.cache.size line,
start SM, start logging, goto the same url

grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5064

    and many lines of
2019-03-02 00:24:25.317000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4

    ... snip ...


Can somebody than understands the code verify that SeaMonkey uses the
network.buffer.cache.size setting for how much to read/write at a
time?

Thanks,
Lee


It's very simple. Seamonkey tells TCP the buffer size it has reserved
for receiving data, and TCP scales the maximum window size accordingly.
When the connection with the other site is set up, the window size is
negotiated. If both size can handle this window size, data will be send
in 256 kB packets.


That is clearly not how it works.


Indeed. The maximum size of packets is a property of the networks 
between the two ends of the connection. The MTU (maximum transmission 
unit) is typically no more than 1500 bytes.

I know, I wasn't referring to Ethernet TCP packets.

That's basically the maximum payload of a network-layer frame, i.e. 
the IP packet including its headers. The overall Path MTU is the 
smallest MTU of all networks between the two ends, and there's 
probably nothing you can do to increase that if sending packets across 
the Internet - data cannot be sent in 256 kB packets, regardless of 
what the endpoints might negotiate.


True, the WAN connections in the Internet have been set up in such a way 
that they can accommodate for an MTU of 1500 byte, without the need for 
packet fragmentation.




The window size is the mechanism by which the receiver notifies the 
sender of how much space it has left in its receive buffer, so that 
the sender can back-off or stop sending if necessary. I don't think 
there is any negotiation involved, and it doesn't affect the size of 
packets - just potentially the rate at which they're sent.


There is a windows size negotiation. Let's say that a windows size of 
256 kB has been negotiated, then the sender can send 256 kB of data 
without having to wait for an acknowledgement from the receiver. The 
receiver can send an acknowledgement for more than one packet, he can 
send an acknowledgement for let's say the first 64 kB, and then the 
sender knows he can send 64 kB more.


A big window size is important for fast connections with a relatively 
high latency.





Start wireshark, start seamonkey & download a file.  Stop the capture
& find the initial tcp syn to the download site.  What I get is
   Window size value: 64240
   Options: (12 bytes), Maximum segment size, No-Operation (NOP),
Window scale, No-Operation (NOP), No-Operation (NOP), SACK permitted
 TCP Option - Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - Window scale: 8 (multiply by 256)
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - SACK permitted

with network.buffer.cache.size set to 32768 or 262144


The advantage of using big packets is that it takes far less overhead.


Except you're not using big packets.  Refer back to the packet
capture; the packet size is negotiated during the initial handshake
with the
   TCP Option - Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes


Yep. The individual packets will be no bigger. The TCP maximum segment 
size is the maximum size of the TCP payload in a single segment. It 
will be less than the MTU, since it is set to a value which attempts 
to keep the overall packet within the path MTU (so that one TCP 
segment fits entirely in one IP packet without fragmentation), and the 
IP and TCP headers take up some of the bytes allowed by the MTU.


When sending larger payloads via TCP, the payload is split into 
multiple segments, each of which can fit in a si

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/3/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 3/3/19, David H. Durgee  wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

The next item on the performance enhancements is pipelining. With
pipelining several several http requests are packed into one TCP
packet.

1. network.http.pipelining = true

2. network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Up to 64 requests into one tcp packet, seems a bit much perhaps, but
remember that the network buffer sizes were increased to 32 MB.

With all the changes I made so far, Seamonkey is unrecognisable fast
now.

Have you done any testing to optimize these settings?  I have often seen
diminishing returns as parameters are increased.  How much improvement
do you see with halving your figures as an example?  Perhaps that would
suffice and leave more memory available for other parameter tuning.

As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, it would be nice if
someone could put together an article on tuning SeaMonkey for systems
with more memory.  This might need to be broken out by platform, as I am
sure that Windows differs from Linux that differs from OS X.

It looks like there was a mozilla project to figure out the best
settings:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Dory
I have no idea what a "Hasal test framework" is, but their idea of
"extreme" doesn't match mine:
- The tests are conducted using default values of the prefs along
with 2 extreme values in 2 directions (larger and smaller).
- network.buffer.cache.size for most test cases, the default (32768)
performs similarly with a larger value (65536).

I did not claim more performance, but instead a big drop in CPU cycles.
My Ethernet NIC has 512 receive buffers allocated, and it seem a buffer
has a size of 2 kB. So if the NIC has 1 MB buffer space, then Seamonkey
should have more, and the standard .8 MB is less.

I don't think it's quite that direct a relationship, but SeaMonkey
certainly needs enough buffer space to drain all the traffic sent to
it vs. leaving it queued up in the operating system buffers.  Which is
why I'm hoping someone who knows the code can figure out if
network.buffer.cache.size  is the buffer size used to get the
[socket?] data from the OS or not.


Look at it from this way. With my 300Mb/sec internet connection it takes 
just over 1 second to fill that 32 MB network cache I created with my 
settings. How long does it take for some web pages to load?





One item not on their list that used to make a difference is
network.http.request.max-start-delay
but with pipelining / spdy / http2 or moz bumping up the default # of
connections however long ago it might not make any difference now.

In any case, making a list of setting changes that might help is a
good idea.  Items mentioned so far are:

browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)

browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size = -1 (no per entry limit)

network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
network.buffer.cache.count = 128

network.http.pipelining = true
network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Did I miss any?

Lee

No, that is about it at the moment. With those settings, Seamonkey
behaves much and much better and faster with me. But keep in mind, I
always have many tabs open, so if you just have a few tabs open, things
may be different.

I haven't been seeing any stalls or slowdowns, so it's just a guessing
game for me about what changes might actually help the people that
have been complaining about SM stalling.  It's a whole lot easier
troubleshooting if you can actually see the trouble for yourself :)

Lee


Indeed.

I haven't mentioned stability until now, but with these settings 
Seamonkey hasn't crashed these last days, and it used to do that once or 
twice per day.


Someone wrote that Seamonkey isn't fast compared with other browsers. I 
completely disagree. With the default settings, Seamonkey is just 
starving for resources, and can't show its true potential with today's 
computers and internet connections.


This is exactly what I have seen so often in the past with operating 
systems and applications. The hardware resources increased dramatically, 
and no one thought of increasing configuration parameters so that these 
resources can actually be used.


I would appreciate some feedback from the developers. Perhaps 
Frank-Rainer can test these parameters, and give us his opinion?


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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/3/19, David H. Durgee  wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

The next item on the performance enhancements is pipelining. With
pipelining several several http requests are packed into one TCP packet.

1. network.http.pipelining = true

2. network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Up to 64 requests into one tcp packet, seems a bit much perhaps, but
remember that the network buffer sizes were increased to 32 MB.

With all the changes I made so far, Seamonkey is unrecognisable fast now.

Have you done any testing to optimize these settings?  I have often seen
diminishing returns as parameters are increased.  How much improvement
do you see with halving your figures as an example?  Perhaps that would
suffice and leave more memory available for other parameter tuning.

As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, it would be nice if
someone could put together an article on tuning SeaMonkey for systems
with more memory.  This might need to be broken out by platform, as I am
sure that Windows differs from Linux that differs from OS X.

It looks like there was a mozilla project to figure out the best settings:
   https://wiki.mozilla.org/Project_Dory
I have no idea what a "Hasal test framework" is, but their idea of
"extreme" doesn't match mine:
   - The tests are conducted using default values of the prefs along
with 2 extreme values in 2 directions (larger and smaller).
   - network.buffer.cache.size for most test cases, the default (32768)
performs similarly with a larger value (65536).


I did not claim more performance, but instead a big drop in CPU cycles. 
My Ethernet NIC has 512 receive buffers allocated, and it seem a buffer 
has a size of 2 kB. So if the NIC has 1 MB buffer space, then Seamonkey 
should have more, and the standard .8 MB is less.




One item not on their list that used to make a difference is
   network.http.request.max-start-delay
but with pipelining / spdy / http2 or moz bumping up the default # of
connections however long ago it might not make any difference now.

In any case, making a list of setting changes that might help is a
good idea.  Items mentioned so far are:

browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)

browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size = -1 (no per entry limit)

network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
network.buffer.cache.count = 128

network.http.pipelining = true
network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Did I miss any?

Lee


No, that is about it at the moment. With those settings, Seamonkey 
behaves much and much better and faster with me. But keep in mind, I 
always have many tabs open, so if you just have a few tabs open, things 
may be different.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

David H. Durgee wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

The next item on the performance enhancements is pipelining. With
pipelining several several http requests are packed into one TCP packet.

1. network.http.pipelining = true

2. network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Up to 64 requests into one tcp packet, seems a bit much perhaps, but
remember that the network buffer sizes were increased to 32 MB.

With all the changes I made so far, Seamonkey is unrecognisable fast now.

Have you done any testing to optimize these settings?  I have often seen
diminishing returns as parameters are increased.  How much improvement
do you see with halving your figures as an example?  Perhaps that would
suffice and leave more memory available for other parameter tuning.

As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, it would be nice if
someone could put together an article on tuning SeaMonkey for systems
with more memory.  This might need to be broken out by platform, as I am
sure that Windows differs from Linux that differs from OS X.

Dave


Increasing parameters without making sure there is memory available, 
usually decreases performance, so I always start with making sure there 
is sufficient memory available.


Increasing memory buffers rarely causes problems.

I increased the network memory buffers from .8 to 32 MB, but what is 32 
MB for a system with Gigabytes of memory? Nothing.


The 4 GB memory cache I configured is a maximum value, if I don't open 
too many tabs, I will never use that 4 GB.


Disabling the disk cache actually decreases memory usage, since the disk 
cache has its own memory cache, to cache disk reads and writes.


It would be wonderful if you could set up test environments to see what 
the parameters do in which situation. However, I don't have the means to 
do that. So instead I raise the size of buffers etc. based on the 
experience of decades of performance tuning.


So far it works fine. Maybe I waste a couple of MB, but who cares. The 
only big memory user is the memory cache, and as I explained, Seamonkey 
will only use the memory it needs, no more.





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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

The next item on the performance enhancements is pipelining. With 
pipelining several several http requests are packed into one TCP packet.


1. network.http.pipelining = true

2. network.http.pipelining.maxrequests = 64

Up to 64 requests into one tcp packet, seems a bit much perhaps, but 
remember that the network buffer sizes were increased to 32 MB.


With all the changes I made so far, Seamonkey is unrecognisable fast now.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/2/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 3/1/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

The next set of parameters I've adjusted are network buffers.

1. network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
the default setting is 32 kB, and that corresponds with the buffer size
of very old TCP/IP stacks.

2. network.buffer.cache.count = 128
The number of buffers is increased from 24 to 128.

The total network buffer space has increased from 24 x 32 kB = 768 kB,
to 128 x 256 kB = 32,768 kB. The result is that the CPU activity for
Seamonkey has dropped dramatically, by about half.

You might be right.

I tried setting network.buffer.cache.size set to 262144, exit (i have
SM set to clear everything at exit), start SM again, start logging
(about:networking / logging), goto

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Fronalpstock_big.jpg

grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5488
 and get lots of
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4

   ... snip ...

exit SM, edit prefs.js to remove the network.buffer.cache.size line,
start SM, start logging, goto the same url

grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5064

and many lines of
2019-03-02 00:24:25.317000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4

... snip ...

Can somebody than understands the code verify that SeaMonkey uses the
network.buffer.cache.size setting for how much to read/write at a
time?

Thanks,
Lee

It's very simple. Seamonkey tells TCP the buffer size it has reserved
for receiving data, and TCP scales the maximum window size accordingly.
When the connection with the other site is set up, the window size is
negotiated. If both size can handle this window size, data will be send
in 256 kB packets.

That is clearly not how it works.

Start wireshark, start seamonkey & download a file.  Stop the capture
& find the initial tcp syn to the download site.  What I get is
   Window size value: 64240
   Options: (12 bytes), Maximum segment size, No-Operation (NOP),
Window scale, No-Operation (NOP), No-Operation (NOP), SACK permitted
 TCP Option - Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - Window scale: 8 (multiply by 256)
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - No-Operation (NOP)
 TCP Option - SACK permitted

with network.buffer.cache.size set to 32768 or 262144


The advantage of using big packets is that it takes far less overhead.

Except you're not using big packets.  Refer back to the packet
capture; the packet size is negotiated during the initial handshake
with the
   TCP Option - Maximum segment size: 1460 bytes


Not the data in the packet is the problem, handling the packet itself is
the problem. That's why the processor has far less to do when you
increase network.buffer.cache.size .

Right, the processor has less to do when you handle data in larger
chunks - which is why I was asking for someone who understands the
code to look & see if SeaMonkey uses the network.buffer.cache.size
setting for how much to read/write at a time.

In other words, is setting network.buffer.cache.size the best that can
be done or are there more memory-usage/speed trade-offs that can be
made?

Thanks,
Lee


The settings I use now, provide for 32 MB of buffer space, compared to 
.8 MB before. The result is far less CPU cycles, so I'm happy right now. 
If there is a way to make precise calculations for setting these 
parameters, hat would be fine, but I'm not counting on it.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/1/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

The next set of parameters I've adjusted are network buffers.

1. network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
the default setting is 32 kB, and that corresponds with the buffer size
of very old TCP/IP stacks.

2. network.buffer.cache.count = 128
The number of buffers is increased from 24 to 128.

The total network buffer space has increased from 24 x 32 kB = 768 kB,
to 128 x 256 kB = 32,768 kB. The result is that the CPU activity for
Seamonkey has dropped dramatically, by about half.

You might be right.

I tried setting network.buffer.cache.size set to 262144, exit (i have
SM set to clear everything at exit), start SM again, start logging
(about:networking / logging), goto
   https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Fronalpstock_big.jpg

grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5488
and get lots of
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4
2019-03-02 00:11:26.676000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4
2019-03-02 00:11:26.692000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 29b8117cd10 count=262144 state=4

exit SM, edit prefs.js to remove the network.buffer.cache.size line,
start SM, start logging, goto the same url

grep -i "Http2Stream::WriteSegments" log.txt-main.5064

   and many lines of
2019-03-02 00:24:25.317000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.317000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.332000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.332000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.332000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.348000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.348000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.348000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4
2019-03-02 00:24:25.364000 UTC - [Socket Thread]: I/nsHttp
Http2Stream::WriteSegments 1db0255ca30 count=32768 state=4


Can somebody than understands the code verify that SeaMonkey uses the
network.buffer.cache.size setting for how much to read/write at a
time?

Thanks,
Lee


It's very simple. Seamonkey tells TCP the buffer size it has reserved 
for receiving data, and TCP scales the maximum window size accordingly. 
When the connection with the other site is set up, the window size is 
negotiated. If both size can handle this window size, data will be send 
in 256 kB packets.


The advantage of using big packets is that it takes far less overhead. 
Not the data in the packet is the problem, handling the packet itself is 
the problem. That's why the processor has far less to do when you 
increase network.buffer.cache.size .

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

The next set of parameters I've adjusted are network buffers.

1. network.buffer.cache.size = 262144 (256 kB)
the default setting is 32 kB, and that corresponds with the buffer size 
of very old TCP/IP stacks.


2. network.buffer.cache.count = 128
The number of buffers is increased from 24 to 128.

The total network buffer space has increased from 24 x 32 kB = 768 kB, 
to 128 x 256 kB = 32,768 kB. The result is that the CPU activity for 
Seamonkey has dropped dramatically, by about half.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible 
argument. If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk 
from a previous session to a new session. When I was still using 
Windows 98, I often had the Blue Screen of Death. The stability 
of the system was greatly enhanced after I made a registry 
setting that cleaned the page file during the shutdown procedure. 
It's the same thing with Seamonkey. After Seamonkey crashed, I 
often deleted the profiles folder in appdata > local > Mozilla > 
Seamonkey. It made Seamonkey much more stable, since this folder 
also contains the disk cache.


Does it help if you set SM to delete private data, including 
cache, on termination? That sounds like what you want. I see no 
reason to delete the entire profiles folder unless you're just 
running the program for testing purposes or you have a serious 
problem that normal trouble-shooting can't solve.


The profiles folder is  recreated when Seamonkey is started again. 
I'v never noticed any adverse effects after deleting the profiles 
folder. Keep in mind that I deleted the folder after Seamonkey 
crashed, so there is no proper termination.


I would expect deleting the profiles folder to delete all your user 
data -- email folders and messages, login passwords, bookmarks, etc. 
For me that would be a huge cost that would have to be justified by 
a huge problem. It's cold comfort that the program runs with a blank 
profile.


No, those files are in the profiles directory under appdata > 
*roaming*  > Mozilla > Seamonkey


Uh, how are "profiles folder" and "profiles directory" different? In 
all my years working with computers, "folder" and "directory" have 
always been synonymous. Originally, "folder" was Macspeak and 
"directory" was PCspeak, but that divide no longer holds.


At any rate, what exactly are you talking about deleting?



Of course folder and directory are the same, the point is that there are 
two profiles folders, one under local that can be deleted, and one under 
roaming that can not be deleted.


The complete profiles folder itself in local can be deleted, it will be 
recreated when Seamonkey starts.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible 
argument. If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from 
a previous session to a new session. When I was still using Windows 
98, I often had the Blue Screen of Death. The stability of the 
system was greatly enhanced after I made a registry setting that 
cleaned the page file during the shutdown procedure. It's the same 
thing with Seamonkey. After Seamonkey crashed, I often deleted the 
profiles folder in appdata > local > Mozilla > Seamonkey. It made 
Seamonkey much more stable, since this folder also contains the 
disk cache.


Does it help if you set SM to delete private data, including cache, 
on termination? That sounds like what you want. I see no reason to 
delete the entire profiles folder unless you're just running the 
program for testing purposes or you have a serious problem that 
normal trouble-shooting can't solve.


The profiles folder is  recreated when Seamonkey is started again. 
I'v never noticed any adverse effects after deleting the profiles 
folder. Keep in mind that I deleted the folder after Seamonkey 
crashed, so there is no proper termination.


I would expect deleting the profiles folder to delete all your user 
data -- email folders and messages, login passwords, bookmarks, etc. 
For me that would be a huge cost that would have to be justified by a 
huge problem. It's cold comfort that the program runs with a blank 
profile.




No, those files are in the profiles directory under appdata > *roaming* 
> Mozilla > Seamonkey

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

SeaMonkey is using cache2 since 2.48. cache 1 is gone.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1241622

All settings are stock Gecko/Firefox settings unless changed manually.

FRG


Thank you, but I was using cache2 long before that. So this setting is 
pointless now?






Dirk Munk wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 2/28/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

I've set the following cache parameters with about:config :

1. browser.cache.use_new_backend = 1 (true)
This activates a 'new' cache mechanism, that seems to be faster and 
more

stable than the old one. It is unclear why this isn't the default
setting.
It's a programmers' law: There is no fix as permanent as a 
'temporary' fix:

   https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913806#c8

The pref that is enabled by default is 
"browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp"


I still have the defaults for
   browser.cache.use_new_backend  set to 0
   browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp  set to true
And all my cache files are under the cache2 dir which agrees with
https://www.janbambas.cz/mozilla-firefox-new-http-cache-is-live/


Did you read this in that article:

 Enabling the new HTTP cache by default is planned for Q4/2013.

I assume that Firefox is now using the 'new' cache as the only cache 
mechanism, so why shouldn't Seamonkey do that as well?




 1 – enable, use the brand new HTTP cache (files are stored under
cache2 directory in your profile)



2. browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
This sets the *maximum* memory capacity of the cache to 4 GB. It does
*not* mean that Seamonkey will always use 4 GB of cache memory, it
merely means that the cache memory is allowed to grow up to 4 GB *if*
Seamonkey needs it. For that to happen there must be many, many 
tabs open.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity


Did you read the table on that page?
It says that using the -1 setting will give you a memory cache of 32 
MB if your system has 8 GB or more RAM.
The default setting for Seamonkey is 200 MB at the moment, I'm using 
4 GB.

That page was written in the dark ages.


   For e-mail and newsgroups (i.e., Thunderbird and SeaMonkey),
messages for IMAP accounts are cached as well in either disk or memory
cache, unless synchronized locally already. This reduces the amount of
network activity to reload previously viewed messages. This preference
controls the maximum amount of memory to use for caching decoded
images, messages, and chrome items (application user interface
elements).

Maybe if you haven't compacted your mail in a while & all the deleted
msgs are still in the file?  Or you're looking at newsgroups with a
long retention period?  Because it seems like the only web pages that
might need >10 MB of cache are if videos are cached.


On the one hand it may be interesting to know why Seamonkey is using 
so much memory cache. On the other hand, I don't care. I want to use 
Seamonkey the way I'm using it. So I make the settings fit for my use.






3. browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)
This setting *disables* the disk cache. After I made this setting,
Seamonkey became extremely fast compared with an active disk cache.
However, keep in mind that you should only use this setting after
increasing the memory capacity of the cache.

I still think it's a bad idea, but I don't have a gigabit speed
internet link or <10 millisecond response time to the web sites I
frequent like I recall somebody claiming they had.


I think I have 300 Mb/sec download at the moment.



https://lifehacker.com/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-di-5687850 


   Update: One of the folks over at Mozilla laid out a few downsides to
using this method. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it's good to be
informed about what this does vs. the default settings (and how future
plans for Firefox will work with this tweak).
 links to
https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J 



Lee


Again, that is an article from 2010!!

But let's see if that article is still useful:

1. It will slow down plug-ins like Adobe reader. I don't notice that.

2. The size of the memory cache is capped at a much lower number. 
Perhaps with a 32 bit browser, but the standard size of the disk 
cache is 350 MB, I'm using 4 GB in memory!!


3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible 
argument. If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from a 
previous session to a new session. When I was still using Windows 98, 
I often had the Blue Screen of Death. The stability of the system was 
greatly enhanced after I made a registry setting that cleaned the 
page file during the shutdown procedure.It's the same thing with 
Seamonkey. After Seamonkey crashed, I often deleted the profiles 
folder in appdata > local > Mozilla > Seamonkey. It made Seamonkey 
much more stable, since this folder also contains the disk cache.


4. I see no reason to

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 3/1/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

Lee wrote:

On 2/28/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

I've set the following cache parameters with about:config :

1. browser.cache.use_new_backend = 1 (true)
This activates a 'new' cache mechanism, that seems to be faster and more
stable than the old one. It is unclear why this isn't the default
setting.

It's a programmers' law: There is no fix as permanent as a 'temporary'
fix:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913806#c8

The pref that is enabled by default is
"browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp"

I still have the defaults for
browser.cache.use_new_backend  set to 0
browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp  set to true
And all my cache files are under the cache2 dir which agrees with
https://www.janbambas.cz/mozilla-firefox-new-http-cache-is-live/

Did you read this in that article:

  Enabling the new HTTP cache by default is planned for Q4/2013.

That and the date in the bug report - hence the snark about the
'temporary' fix that's still there.


I assume that Firefox is now using the 'new' cache as the only cache
mechanism, so why shouldn't Seamonkey do that as well?

What makes you think it isn't?

I just tried exiting both SM & FF, deleted all the cache directories
except for safebrowsing & started the browsers.  I have a cache2
directory for both.

I don't get a cache directory created until I put 'about:cache' in the url bar


2. browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
This sets the *maximum* memory capacity of the cache to 4 GB. It does
*not* mean that Seamonkey will always use 4 GB of cache memory, it
merely means that the cache memory is allowed to grow up to 4 GB *if*
Seamonkey needs it. For that to happen there must be many, many tabs
open.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity

Did you read the table on that page?
It says that using the -1 setting will give you a memory cache of 32 MB
if your system has 8 GB or more RAM.
The default setting for Seamonkey is 200 MB at the moment, I'm using 4 GB.
That page was written in the dark ages.

^shrug^  maybe so, but I'm not having a problem with seamonkey
stalling or maxing out a cpu.  The defaults are working fine for me.



For e-mail and newsgroups (i.e., Thunderbird and SeaMonkey),
messages for IMAP accounts are cached as well in either disk or memory
cache, unless synchronized locally already. This reduces the amount of
network activity to reload previously viewed messages. This preference
controls the maximum amount of memory to use for caching decoded
images, messages, and chrome items (application user interface
elements).

Maybe if you haven't compacted your mail in a while & all the deleted
msgs are still in the file?  Or you're looking at newsgroups with a
long retention period?  Because it seems like the only web pages that
might need >10 MB of cache are if videos are cached.

On the one hand it may be interesting to know why Seamonkey is using so
much memory cache. On the other hand, I don't care. I want to use
Seamonkey the way I'm using it. So I make the settings fit for my use.

Sounds good to me :)



3. browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)
This setting *disables* the disk cache. After I made this setting,
Seamonkey became extremely fast compared with an active disk cache.
However, keep in mind that you should only use this setting after
increasing the memory capacity of the cache.

I still think it's a bad idea, but I don't have a gigabit speed
internet link or <10 millisecond response time to the web sites I
frequent like I recall somebody claiming they had.

I think I have 300 Mb/sec download at the moment.


https://lifehacker.com/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-di-5687850
Update: One of the folks over at Mozilla laid out a few downsides to
using this method. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it's good to be
informed about what this does vs. the default settings (and how future
plans for Firefox will work with this tweak).
 links to
https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J

Lee

Again, that is an article from 2010!!

But let's see if that article is still useful:

1. It will slow down plug-ins like Adobe reader. I don't notice that.

2. The size of the memory cache is capped at a much lower number.
Perhaps with a 32 bit browser, but the standard size of the disk cache
is 350 MB, I'm using 4 GB in memory!!

3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible argument.

Not so horrible if you have a metered connection.  The only internet
connection my brother in law had for a long time was wireless that
cost $$$ if he went over his traffic quota.  For people like him, a
persistent cache helps save money.


OK, I get that. But that should be an exception setting, not a default 
setting. At least, that is my opinion.





If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from a previous
session to a new session. Wh

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible 
argument. If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from a 
previous session to a new session. When I was still using Windows 98, 
I often had the Blue Screen of Death. The stability of the system was 
greatly enhanced after I made a registry setting that cleaned the 
page file during the shutdown procedure. It's the same thing with 
Seamonkey. After Seamonkey crashed, I often deleted the profiles 
folder in appdata > local > Mozilla > Seamonkey. It made Seamonkey 
much more stable, since this folder also contains the disk cache.


Does it help if you set SM to delete private data, including cache, on 
termination? That sounds like what you want. I see no reason to delete 
the entire profiles folder unless you're just running the program for 
testing purposes or you have a serious problem that normal 
trouble-shooting can't solve.


The profiles folder is  recreated when Seamonkey is started again. I'v 
never noticed any adverse effects after deleting the profiles folder. 
Keep in mind that I deleted the folder after Seamonkey crashed, so there 
is no proper termination.

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

Re: Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 2/28/19, Dirk Munk  wrote:

I've set the following cache parameters with about:config :

1. browser.cache.use_new_backend = 1 (true)
This activates a 'new' cache mechanism, that seems to be faster and more
stable than the old one. It is unclear why this isn't the default
setting.

It's a programmers' law: There is no fix as permanent as a 'temporary' fix:
   https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=913806#c8

The pref that is enabled by default is "browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp"

I still have the defaults for
   browser.cache.use_new_backend  set to 0
   browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp  set to true
And all my cache files are under the cache2 dir which agrees with
   https://www.janbambas.cz/mozilla-firefox-new-http-cache-is-live/


Did you read this in that article:

    Enabling the new HTTP cache by default is planned for Q4/2013.

I assume that Firefox is now using the 'new' cache as the only cache 
mechanism, so why shouldn't Seamonkey do that as well?




 1 – enable, use the brand new HTTP cache (files are stored under
cache2 directory in your profile)



2. browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
This sets the *maximum* memory capacity of the cache to 4 GB. It does
*not* mean that Seamonkey will always use 4 GB of cache memory, it
merely means that the cache memory is allowed to grow up to 4 GB *if*
Seamonkey needs it. For that to happen there must be many, many tabs open.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity


Did you read the table on that page?
It says that using the -1 setting will give you a memory cache of 32 MB 
if your system has 8 GB or more RAM.

The default setting for Seamonkey is 200 MB at the moment, I'm using 4 GB.
That page was written in the dark ages.


   For e-mail and newsgroups (i.e., Thunderbird and SeaMonkey),
messages for IMAP accounts are cached as well in either disk or memory
cache, unless synchronized locally already. This reduces the amount of
network activity to reload previously viewed messages. This preference
controls the maximum amount of memory to use for caching decoded
images, messages, and chrome items (application user interface
elements).

Maybe if you haven't compacted your mail in a while & all the deleted
msgs are still in the file?  Or you're looking at newsgroups with a
long retention period?  Because it seems like the only web pages that
might need >10 MB of cache are if videos are cached.


On the one hand it may be interesting to know why Seamonkey is using so 
much memory cache. On the other hand, I don't care. I want to use 
Seamonkey the way I'm using it. So I make the settings fit for my use.






3. browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)
This setting *disables* the disk cache. After I made this setting,
Seamonkey became extremely fast compared with an active disk cache.
However, keep in mind that you should only use this setting after
increasing the memory capacity of the cache.

I still think it's a bad idea, but I don't have a gigabit speed
internet link or <10 millisecond response time to the web sites I
frequent like I recall somebody claiming they had.


I think I have 300 Mb/sec download at the moment.



https://lifehacker.com/speed-up-firefox-by-moving-your-cache-to-ram-no-ram-di-5687850
   Update: One of the folks over at Mozilla laid out a few downsides to
using this method. It's not a bad idea, per se, but it's good to be
informed about what this does vs. the default settings (and how future
plans for Firefox will work with this tweak).
 links to
https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=msg/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/nqYLKTsOAbs/Fh7XO2PVUn0J

Lee


Again, that is an article from 2010!!

But let's see if that article is still useful:

1. It will slow down plug-ins like Adobe reader. I don't notice that.

2. The size of the memory cache is capped at a much lower number. 
Perhaps with a 32 bit browser, but the standard size of the disk cache 
is 350 MB, I'm using 4 GB in memory!!


3. The disk cache persists across restarts. That is a horrible argument. 
If there is anything I hate, then it is taking junk from a previous 
session to a new session. When I was still using Windows 98, I often had 
the Blue Screen of Death. The stability of the system was greatly 
enhanced after I made a registry setting that cleaned the page file 
during the shutdown procedure.It's the same thing with Seamonkey. After 
Seamonkey crashed, I often deleted the profiles folder in appdata > 
local > Mozilla > Seamonkey. It made Seamonkey much more stable, since 
this folder also contains the disk cache.


4. I see no reason to use a disk cache if you have a proper memory 
cache. It's very simple, never do on disk what you can do in memory.


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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Ant wrote:

On 2/27/2019 4:29 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
...
I did have some trouble this afternoon as I was perusing Google News. 
For some stories, I clicked "View full coverage" and each time I did, 
SM hung. As before, CPU peaked at 26–27% and RAM usage was a little 
over 2 GB. After two or three minutes, the cursor returned to its 
usual arrow shape and CPU usage fell to under 10%. But the next time 
I clicked "View full coverage," it was like standing on the brakes 
again.


http://news.google.com, http://linkedin.com (logged in), 
http://facebook.com, etc. are SO slow and bloated in SM esp. with 
multiple tabs :(


Not with me, see my new thread on this matter.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Stability and performance enhancing configuration settings for 64 bit Windows Seamonkey.

[Dirk Munk]

I've been using Netscape / Mozilla / Seamonkey since Netscape 2.0 on 
Windows 95 or 98. When I moved from Windows Vista to Windows 7, I of 
course went to the 64 bit version. It finally removed the 4 GB limit of 
the operating system.


One 64 bit operating system, I would like to see 64 bit applications, 
certainly when an application can profit from using more than 4 GB of 
memory.


However, Seamonkey was still a 32 bit application, and the official 
versions still are. Now I like to have many tabs open, and the 32 bit 
version of Seamonkey regularly crashed when I had to may tabs open. That 
points to memory problems, so I was pleasantly when 64 bit versions of 
Seamonkey appeared, not official versions, but test versions. Finally 
that 4 GB limit is gone, so I thought. Although the 64 bit version was a 
bit better, its still crashed quite often. So I increased the disk 
cache. It seem to improve things a bit, but not as much as I hoped for. 
And then finally I found the parameter to increase the memory cahce of 
Seamonkey, and that really made a big improvement.


Bill Gianopoulos has a web site with 64 bit Windows versions of Seamonkey:

http://www.wg9s.com/

I'm using version 2.53 at the moment.

I'm very grateful for him and all the other Seamonkey developers for 
there effort in producing these builds.


I've set the following cache parameters with about:config :

1. browser.cache.use_new_backend = 1 (true)
This activates a 'new' cache mechanism, that seems to be faster and more 
stable than the old one. It is unclear why this isn't the default 
setting. I've been using it for a very long time now.


2. browser.cache.memory.capacity = 4194304 (4 GB)
This sets the *maximum* memory capacity of the cache to 4 GB. It does 
*not* mean that Seamonkey will always use 4 GB of cache memory, it 
merely means that the cache memory is allowed to grow up to 4 GB *if* 
Seamonkey needs it. For that to happen there must be many, many tabs open.


3. browser.cache.disk.enable = 0 (false)
This setting *disables* the disk cache. After I made this setting, 
Seamonkey became extremely fast compared with an active disk cache. 
However, keep in mind that you should only use this setting after 
increasing the memory capacity of the cache.


For some reason about:cache does not give any useful information with 
these cache settings. That may have something to do with the new backend 
setting.



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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> This is *not* a bug!

You misunderstood. Any changes you want to done to the source need a 
bug number and a patch in bugzilla. In this case an enhancement bug 
which I at least would decline. So this leaves the documentation.


FRG


I'm not referring to the source, I'm referring to the configuration file 
at the moment.





Dirk Munk wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Dear Frank-Rainer

This is *not* a bug!

It's very simple, if you open more tabs, you will need more memory. 
The default memory setting simply is not sufficient for 'power users' 
with many tabs open.


What I see here is what I've seen many times before. In a 32 bit 
environment, memory constraints are very important, on OS level and 
application level. All kinds of settings are done with the mindset of 
conserving memory.


When the OS or the application is moved to 64 bit, very often no one 
thinks about removing memory constraints, so applications still run 
as if they were 32 bit applications. What should be done is checking 
all kind of memory settings, and change these settings to let them 
use (much) more memory. After all, that is the only purpose of 64 bit 
operating systems and applications, make it possible to use more memory!


I've worked with very big computer systems, and almost every time 
when there was a performance problem, it was due to memory conserving 
settings. Database caches, not enough semaphores allocated for the 
operating system, insufficient number of buffers for network and SAN 
adapters, insufficient memory for sort procedures, not enough memory 
for the Java Virtual Machine, the list goes on and on.


My friendly advise to the Seamonkey developers would be to go over 
all the settings, and remove memory constraints. Yes, it will 
increase the memory footprint of 64 bit Seamonkey, but if a user has 
a problem with that, he should increase the memory in his system, or 
stick to the 32 bit version.


My experience with removing memory constraints is that applications 
become much more stable as well. No hangs, no crashes etc.


By the way, if Seamonkey could use large pages, that could improve 
speed and stability as well. I've set up my Windows account to enable 
large pages.






Personally I won't do any pref change in SeaMonkey here and would 
advice to close any possible bug which asks for it.


These are Gecko backend settings and we usually don't touch them 
unless they break us. Except the occasional change now and there.


But if some see a significant performance impact when changing this 
it might be best do add something to the release notes. Happy to put 
a small explanation into the next one if someones sends a snipplet 
to me.


FRG

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Yesterday, I wrote:


Pref set to 1048576. Let's see what happens.


OK, 24 hours of life with a larger memory cache have shown:

1) No dramatic improvement in overall performance;

2) A lack of hangs when SM reaches 25% CPU usage -- it hasn't 
reached that level during the test period. Rather, it seems to peak 
at 15–18%.


So there may well be something to what Dirk Munk advised. I'll keep 
running with this pref setting and watch for the hangs I used to 
get regularly. When opportunities arise, I'll push it harder.






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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 27/02/2019 10:53:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Dear Frank-Rainer

This is *not* a bug!

It's very simple, if you open more tabs, you will need more memory. 
The default memory setting simply is not sufficient for 'power users' 
with many tabs open.


What I see here is what I've seen many times before. In a 32 bit 
environment, memory constraints are very important, on OS level and 
application level. All kinds of settings are done with the mindset of 
conserving memory.


When the OS or the application is moved to 64 bit, very often no one 
thinks about removing memory constraints, so applications still run 
as if they were 32 bit applications. What should be done is checking 
all kind of memory settings, and change these settings to let them 
use (much) more memory. After all, that is the only purpose of 64 bit 
operating systems and applications, make it possible to use more memory!

[cut]


Hello,

I really would like an official answer from the SM developers on this 
matter.
I followed your advice to increase the allocated RAM (on the previous 
thread about it) to 4GB and *nothing* has ameliorate.
*But* I'm on macOS and I've always seen SM using a lot of RAM, really 
too much for a (modern) browser that should load the tabs only when 
they are actually in use. It should not matter if there are 150 tabs, 
but only 30 are loaded because you are reading these websites.

SeaMonkey for macOS is already 64bit.

Still my SM 2.49.4 is hanging a lot of times a day, with CPU spikes to 
90/100% and the colored spinning wheel for 30 seconds. I observed this 
is happening more often since I added a new news-server (astraweb).


Any clue?

Thank you.



It could have something to do with network settings in Seamonkey. For 
instance there is a setting network.http.max-connections , you can try 
to increase it. I have it at 512 at the moment.


There are many other of those kind of settings that I have increased 
over time to remove restrictions. It seems you are running into some 
kind of restriction somewhere, and now we have to figure out which one 
it is.

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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Dear Frank-Rainer

This is *not* a bug!

It's very simple, if you open more tabs, you will need more memory. The 
default memory setting simply is not sufficient for 'power users' with 
many tabs open.


What I see here is what I've seen many times before. In a 32 bit 
environment, memory constraints are very important, on OS level and 
application level. All kinds of settings are done with the mindset of 
conserving memory.


When the OS or the application is moved to 64 bit, very often no one 
thinks about removing memory constraints, so applications still run as 
if they were 32 bit applications. What should be done is checking all 
kind of memory settings, and change these settings to let them use 
(much) more memory. After all, that is the only purpose of 64 bit 
operating systems and applications, make it possible to use more memory!


I've worked with very big computer systems, and almost every time when 
there was a performance problem, it was due to memory conserving 
settings. Database caches, not enough semaphores allocated for the 
operating system, insufficient number of buffers for network and SAN 
adapters, insufficient memory for sort procedures, not enough memory for 
the Java Virtual Machine, the list goes on and on.


My friendly advise to the Seamonkey developers would be to go over all 
the settings, and remove memory constraints. Yes, it will increase the 
memory footprint of 64 bit Seamonkey, but if a user has a problem with 
that, he should increase the memory in his system, or stick to the 32 
bit version.


My experience with removing memory constraints is that applications 
become much more stable as well. No hangs, no crashes etc.


By the way, if Seamonkey could use large pages, that could improve speed 
and stability as well. I've set up my Windows account to enable large pages.






Personally I won't do any pref change in SeaMonkey here and would 
advice to close any possible bug which asks for it.


These are Gecko backend settings and we usually don't touch them 
unless they break us. Except the occasional change now and there.


But if some see a significant performance impact when changing this it 
might be best do add something to the release notes. Happy to put a 
small explanation into the next one if someones sends a snipplet to me.


FRG

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Yesterday, I wrote:


Pref set to 1048576. Let's see what happens.


OK, 24 hours of life with a larger memory cache have shown:

1) No dramatic improvement in overall performance;

2) A lack of hangs when SM reaches 25% CPU usage -- it hasn't reached 
that level during the test period. Rather, it seems to peak at 15–18%.


So there may well be something to what Dirk Munk advised. I'll keep 
running with this pref setting and watch for the hangs I used to get 
regularly. When opportunities arise, I'll push it harder.




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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Lee wrote:


On 2/25/19, Paul B. Gallagher  wrote:


OK, so the workaround for the CPU cap is to use less CPU time?


I think the "CPU cap" you're seeing is a single logical CPU running
100% busy.  If your system has four logical CPUs and one of them is
100% busy that'd be 25% overall cpu utilization.  If you're on windows
10 you can check by

start / Windows System / Task Manager
click on the performance tab, then cpu
right click on the graph, change graph to, logical processors


The Task Manager is how I know how much CPU is being used, and even 
though I didn't say so explicitly, I thought I implied that was my 
theory too, that one CPU is maxed out. Looking at the performance tab 
on my system, it already shows four separate graphs, one for each 
processor. But they all seem to be busy at roughly equal levels, so 
perhaps something else is going on.



And the way to do that is to reduce disk caching (which I'm
probably not doing since I have 5-6 GB of RAM free) by increasing
memory cache?


I think the suggestion is to reduce cpu usage by keeping more stuff
in memory & not wasting cpu cycles by sending stuff off to the disk 
(either swap or cache) & then reading it back in.


I heard that, but I'm skeptical. I don't think my system is stalling 
due to paging or caching to disk, but today's test will show whether 
Dirk's right or wrong.


Another possible scenario (I thought we grew out of this decades ago) 
is that the program doesn't know how to use all the available RAM, or 
something is denying it access beyond its allocation. 


That is exactly what is happening! Seamonkey would love to use more RAM 
by putting more data in the memory cache, but the setting of 200 MB 
makes that impossible. It is not allowed to use more RAM. If you would 
set the memory cache to 16 GB (in theory), you would most likely see 
that Seamonkey only takes a very small amount of the 16 GB, it doesn't 
need more. To make this very clear, that 16 GB is not allocated to 
Seamonkey, but Seamonkey is allowed to ask for up to 16 GB from Windows 
if it needs more RAM.


But that wouldn't explain why the hangs occur when CPU usage reaches 
25% and not when RAM usage approaches 8 GB (which is when I'd expect 
disk thrashing to start).


Yes it does. Seamonkey is so busy with its own housekeeping, trying to 
move data in and out from the cache, that it hardly has any time left 
for processing the data.


If all the applications on your system need more than 8 GB in total, 
then Windows will start swapping. That does not happen. Your problem is 
that Seamonkey reaches the maximum RAM limit it is allowed to use, but 
that is the result of the setting in the configuration file.


In fact, in the four years I've had this system, I've never seen CPU 
usage over about 26-27% no matter how hard I pushed it.





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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Lee wrote:

On 2/25/19, Paul B. Gallagher  wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


Also, keep in mind that the memory cache setting is a maximum value
that Seamonkey can use. At the moment I have the cache setting at 4
GB, but when I look at the task manager, the whole application uses
about 3.6 GB, That means Seamonkey is only using a fraction of that
allowed 4 GB.

I have 8 GB of RAM, but SM doesn't come anywhere near that. When I
have a lot going on, it seems to peak in the high one-gig or the low
two-gig range (maybe I'm not pushing it as hard as you do). At any
rate, that's not a limiting factor for me. (FWIW, I "let SeaMonkey
manage the size of my cache," but as noted upthread that's the disk
cache.)

But I have noticed that there does seem to be a cap on CPU usage.
When it gets to about 25%, SM slows to a crawl or even hangs (the
cursor turns to a spinning ring and the screen goes pale in Win7),
and the only solutions are either force-close it through Windows or
wait three to five minutes until it thinks things though. This even
happens when there are plenty of CPU cycles available. Other apps
are unaffected, so I just switch to another and do something useful
while I'm waiting.

In that case try to change the memory cache by using about:config.
Look for the entry browser.cache.memory.capacity, it most likely
shows 20. Change it to 524288 (512 MB) or 1048576 (1 GB), and see
what happens. As you can see, I like to use values based on powers of
2.

Uh, what would that have to do with a CPU usage cap?

Caching to disk means reading and writing to disk, moving data around
etc. That can be very CPU intensive, certainly when it's becoming very
difficult to do so.

OK, so the workaround for the CPU cap is to use less CPU time?

I think the "CPU cap" you're seeing is a single logical CPU running
100% busy.  If your system has four logical CPUs and one of them is
100% busy that'd be 25% overall cpu utilization.  If you're on windows
10 you can check by

start / Windows System / Task Manager
click on the performance tab, then cpu
right click on the graph, change graph to, logical processors


Indeed, I don't know how well the multi-theaded implementation of 
Seamonkey is. But even if it is good, then one thread may be responsible 
for maxing out one CPU core, and the other CPU cores are idling. That is 
the problem with a multi-core CPU, they only can use their full power if 
there are enough independent threads to keep every core busy.


If however you have a single thread application, then a multi-core CPU 
hardly brings you anything, and you should look for a CPU with a high 
single core performance.






And the
way to do that is to reduce disk caching (which I'm probably not doing
since I have 5-6 GB of RAM free) by increasing memory cache?

I think the suggestion is to reduce cpu usage by keeping more stuff in
memory & not wasting cpu cycles by sending stuff off to the disk
(either swap or cache) & then reading it back in.


Exactly.



Lee


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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Also, keep in mind that the memory cache setting is a maximum 
value that Seamonkey can use. At the moment I have the cache 
setting at 4 GB, but when I look at the task manager, the whole 
application uses about 3.6 GB, That means Seamonkey is only using 
a fraction of that allowed 4 GB.


I have 8 GB of RAM, but SM doesn't come anywhere near that. When I 
have a lot going on, it seems to peak in the high one-gig or the 
low two-gig range (maybe I'm not pushing it as hard as you do). At 
any rate, that's not a limiting factor for me. (FWIW, I "let 
SeaMonkey manage the size of my cache," but as noted upthread 
that's the disk cache.)


But I have noticed that there does seem to be a cap on CPU usage. 
When it gets to about 25%, SM slows to a crawl or even hangs (the 
cursor turns to a spinning ring and the screen goes pale in Win7), 
and the only solutions are either force-close it through Windows 
or wait three to five minutes until it thinks things though. This 
even happens when there are plenty of CPU cycles available. Other 
apps are unaffected, so I just switch to another and do something 
useful while I'm waiting.


In that case try to change the memory cache by using about:config. 
Look for the entry browser.cache.memory.capacity, it most likely 
shows 20. Change it to 524288 (512 MB) or 1048576 (1 GB), and 
see what happens. As you can see, I like to use values based on 
powers of 2.


Uh, what would that have to do with a CPU usage cap?


Caching to disk means reading and writing to disk, moving data around 
etc. That can be very CPU intensive, certainly when it's becoming 
very difficult to do so.


OK, so the workaround for the CPU cap is to use less CPU time? And the 
way to do that is to reduce disk caching (which I'm probably not doing 
since I have 5-6 GB of RAM free) by increasing memory cache? I'm not 
hearing any disk thrashing at those times. And why would it be 
"becoming very difficult to do so"? I've got a terabyte of free disk 
space.


And yes, my browser.cache.memory.capacity is set to the default 200,000.



Let me tell you a nice story. Once I walked into one of the many rooms 
where the the computer systems of our company were controlled. There was 
a PC screen showing information about one of the computer systems. I 
asked one of the operators if they had a problem with that system. 
Indeed they had, it was the tickets system where all questions, 
complaints etc. were logged, and it had a dismal performance. They had 
tried to find errors in the configuration, they had meetings with the 
software builder, and so on, and no one could find the problem. I looked 
again at the screen, and saw that about 4 GB of the 8 GB internal memory 
was free (it wasn't a big system). So I asked the operator about the 
size of the database cache. He looked it up, and said 350 MB, at which I 
said something like %$#@@*&^%$. I told him to change the setting to 3 
GB, and restart the database at the first possible occasion. After that 
the problems were over.


I'm a storage architect, so I know a lot about disk storage. And I know 
what the best type of disk access is, that's the disk access you don't 
do. Always try to avoid disk access, it is painfully slow even with an SSD.


Now you have 5 - 6 GB free, so that is a useless investment at the 
moment. Try the 1 GB memory cache setting, and see what happens. You can 
always undo it.

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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Steve Dunn wrote:

On 2019-02-25 13:01, Dirk Munk wrote:
For many people the browser is their primary application, so making 
it run as smoothly as possible is quite a logical pursuit.


Frankly, if a user's concern is having a browser that runs as 
smoothly as possible, SeaMonkey is not the right browser.  Despite 
spawning dozens of threads, it is quite poor at making use of multiple 
cores; I generally find that it won't use much more than one core's 
worth of CPU power (e.g. on a four-core system, the SeaMonkey process 
won't go much above 25% utilization), and so all it takes is one tab 
that's consuming CPU cycles to make the whole thing almost 
unresponsive.  (And yes, that's with a memory cache that I had 
increased from the default long ago.)  Firefox and Chrome both run 
rings around it in this department.


That's one of the two main reasons I've largely (and reluctantly) 
abandoned SeaMonkey, the other being its archaic extension support 
that means none of the extensions I rely on have been updated in about 
a year and a half (and never will be).


-Steve


In my opinion it was a very bad decision by Mozilla when they split 
Netscape/Mozilla into a separate browser and e-mail client. I started 
with Netscape 2.0, and I'm still happy with Seamonkey. But I suppose 
you're right that it would be nice if Seamonkey could be modernized 
internally for a better performance.

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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Also, keep in mind that the memory cache setting is a maximum value 
that Seamonkey can use. At the moment I have the cache setting at 4 
GB, but when I look at the task manager, the whole application uses 
about 3.6 GB, That means Seamonkey is only using a fraction of that 
allowed 4 GB.


I have 8 GB of RAM, but SM doesn't come anywhere near that. When I 
have a lot going on, it seems to peak in the high one-gig or the low 
two-gig range (maybe I'm not pushing it as hard as you do). At any 
rate, that's not a limiting factor for me. (FWIW, I "let SeaMonkey 
manage the size of my cache," but as noted upthread that's the disk 
cache.)


But I have noticed that there does seem to be a cap on CPU usage. 
When it gets to about 25%, SM slows to a crawl or even hangs (the 
cursor turns to a spinning ring and the screen goes pale in Win7), 
and the only solutions are either force-close it through Windows or 
wait three to five minutes until it thinks things though. This even 
happens when there are plenty of CPU cycles available. Other apps 
are unaffected, so I just switch to another and do something useful 
while I'm waiting.


In that case try to change the memory cache by using about:config. 
Look for the entry browser.cache.memory.capacity, it most likely 
shows 20. Change it to 524288 (512 MB) or 1048576 (1 GB), and see 
what happens. As you can see, I like to use values based on powers of 2.


Uh, what would that have to do with a CPU usage cap?



Caching to disk means reading and writing to disk, moving data around 
etc. That can be very CPU intensive, certainly when it's becoming very 
difficult to do so.


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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

For many people the browser is their primary application, so making 
it run as smoothly as possible is quite a logical pursuit.


For any PC I recommend a minimum of 8 GB RAM these days, for the 
majority of users this will prevent disk swapping, there's always 
sufficient memory. For 'power' users, you can install 16 GB, and if 
you like to waste lots of memory by having many big applications open 
at the same time (like me), put 32 GB in your PC.


Even with 8 GB, there should be more than sufficient memory to give 
Seamonkey 1 GB instead of the current default 200 MB for instance.


Also, keep in mind that the memory cache setting is a maximum value 
that Seamonkey can use. At the moment I have the cache setting at 4 
GB, but when I look at the task manager, the whole application uses 
about 3.6 GB, That means Seamonkey is only using a fraction of that 
allowed 4 GB.



I have 8 GB of RAM, but SM doesn't come anywhere near that. When I 
have a lot going on, it seems to peak in the high one-gig or the low 
two-gig range (maybe I'm not pushing it as hard as you do). At any 
rate, that's not a limiting factor for me. (FWIW, I "let SeaMonkey 
manage the size of my cache," but as noted upthread that's the disk 
cache.)


But I have noticed that there does seem to be a cap on CPU usage. When 
it gets to about 25%, SM slows to a crawl or even hangs (the cursor 
turns to a spinning ring and the screen goes pale in Win7), and the 
only solutions are either force-close it through Windows or wait three 
to five minutes until it thinks things though. This even happens when 
there are plenty of CPU cycles available. Other apps are unaffected, 
so I just switch to another and do something useful while I'm waiting.




In that case try to change the memory cache by using about:config. Look 
for the entry browser.cache.memory.capacity, it most likely shows 
20. Change it to 524288 (512 MB) or 1048576 (1 GB), and see what 
happens. As you can see, I like to use values based on powers of 2.

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

Re: Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

Steve Dunn wrote:

On 2019-02-25 08:09, Dirk Munk wrote:
However, there's also a memory cache in RAM, and the size of that 
cache can only be changed by tweaking the configuration file. I've 
noticed that increasing the memory cache can certainly increase the 
speed of Seamonkey, and can also avoid freezing problems etc.


OK, I'll take the Devil's Advocate position against you :-) And 
since you stated your qualifications, I'll mention that I have a 
degree in computer science and about 30 years of experience as a 
professional nerd, so you and I both have a good technical 
understanding to work from.


Yes, increasing SeaMonkey's memory cache can improve performance - 
but it can also hurt system performance.  Most people run multiple 
programs at once, and if you set SeaMonkey to use lots of RAM, that 
means less RAM is available for other programs before the operating 
system has to start swapping, and as you know, once you start 
swapping, performance falls dramatically.  Even if your swap device is 
an SSD, it's still orders of magnitude slower than RAM.


And sure, a 64-bit program has a massive virtual address space, 
and a 64-bit operating system can access a lot of physical RAM, but I 
suspect most average users' PCs only have 4-8 GB of RAM.


You and I have the technical background to understand that. The 
average user doesn't.  Making this setting something that's exposed in 
the normal preferences menu rather than burying it in about:config 
invites users who don't have a technical background to make a bad 
choice.  So I think it's best left as is.  Users with technical skills 
can already easily change it (as you and I have both done).  Users 
without technical skills should not change it.


-Steve


Thanks for your reply.

I get your point of course, but there is a bit more to it.

For many people the browser is their primary application, so making it 
run as smoothly as possible is quite a logical pursuit.


For any PC I recommend a minimum of 8 GB RAM these days, for the 
majority of users this will prevent disk swapping, there's always 
sufficient memory. For 'power' users, you can install 16 GB, and if you 
like to waste lots of memory by having many big applications open at the 
same time (like me), put 32 GB in your PC.


Even with 8 GB, there should be more than sufficient memory to give 
Seamonkey 1 GB instead of the current default 200 MB for instance.


Also, keep in mind that the memory cache setting is a maximum value that 
Seamonkey can use. At the moment I have the cache setting at 4 GB, but 
when I look at the task manager, the whole application uses about 3.6 
GB, That means Seamonkey is only using a fraction of that allowed 4 GB.


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

Should the size of the memory cache be a setting in preferences?

[Dirk Munk]

I started working in the IT some 40 years ago. At the time I worked with 
16 bit computers that had a glorious 256kB of memory, and those were not 
PC's because at the time there were no PC's.


One thing I learned very quickly, if you want to speed up thing on a 
computer, give the programs, utilities etc. more memory. Sounds logical, 
but from personal experience I can assure you that many professionals 
don't have a clue. You have no idea how many how many bad performing 
computer systems I have seen over the years, that sometimes were not 
using more then 80% of their memory. Changing a few parameters for 
database caches etc. , and the problems were gone.


In the past computers did not have much memory, it was expensive, and 
with for instance 32 bit computers total memory is limited to appr. 3.5 
GB. If the computer only has 2 GB of memory, and the computer needs 
more, it will start swapping to disk, using the disk as a kind of memory 
extension. That is a very common thing to do with operating system.


Applications can do the same, if they need more memory then they have, 
they may also start using disk space as memory if they are set up to do 
so. Netscape > Mozilla > Seamonkey started life as a 16 bit program, now 
the official versions are 32 bit, and the coming, but still experimental 
versions are 64 bit.


Seamonkey is also set up to use disk space as cache, and the size of 
that cache can be set in the preferences if you please to do so. That 
works fine for the 32 bit and the 64 bit version of Seamonkey.


However, there's also a memory cache in RAM, and the size of that cache 
can only be changed by tweaking the configuration file. I've noticed 
that increasing the memory cache can certainly increase the speed of 
Seamonkey, and can also avoid freezing problems etc.


That's why in my opinion it would be a good idea to make a entry in the 
preferences for setting the memory cache, and certainly for the 64 bit 
versions. With a 64 bit Windows it's quite easy to have lots of memory, 
so why not use it?




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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

JAS wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Why don't you just use "Let SeaMonkey manage the size of my cache" in
Advanced->Cache?

FRG

I am using Seamonkey 2.48 on Windows 7 wit 8gb memory and my browser 
freezes all the time, I have

disk-cache set to "let Seamonkey set"
and in about:config I have the following:

browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size;5120

browser.cache.memory.enable;true
What should the settings be?

Thanks,
JAS


Frank-Rainer wrote the default setting is 20, so about 200MB. You 
are running with 5MB, no wonder it's freezing.
I was running with 500MB, and that didn't work for me. I had big 
problems, not just freezing. So now I'm running with 4GB (and lots of 
open Tabs!!).

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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Default for browser.cache.memory.capacity seems to be 20. Never 
hand any problems here in countless installations. Is your disk 
slooo or an AV interfering?


FRG


No, but I always have many, many tabs open, and disk cache can not 
replace memory cache. Furthermore, when I have plenty of memory, why 
force Seamonkey to use the disk cache if I can give it plenty of memory?


Decades ago when I started in the IT, I already learned that giving 
applications plenty of memory really helps to speed up things. I once 
replaced a computer system (not x86) by another one that was basically 
the same. Just slightly faster CPUs and more memory. I set everything up 
to do as much as possible in memory, and the thing went 11 times faster 
than it predecessor.





Dirk Munk wrote:

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14/02/2019 14:51:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while 
ago, I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that 
became garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 
didn't help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much 
bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB 
(2097152), and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), 
the browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.



What's the difference with the "let SM manage the size of my cache" 
preference?


That is the disk cache, so files on disk, I'm talking about the 
memory cache, in RAM.


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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Why don't you just use "Let SeaMonkey manage the size of my cache" in 
Advanced->Cache?


FRG


As far as I'm aware, that's only for the disk cache.




Dirk Munk wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while ago, 
I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that became 
garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 didn't 
help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much 
bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB (2097152), 
and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), the 
browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.


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

Re: 2.53 64 bit has those American timestamps again

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Mozilla overhauled the intl api.

Appearance -> Date and Time Formatting

If this doesn't help please file a bug with pictures/examples 
including the setting.


Otherwise 2.57 will probably be the same.

FRG



Dirk Munk wrote:
Unfortunately the 64 bit 2.53 version has the American date and time 
stamps again, instead of the date and time stamps I set up in the 
Windows regional settings (24 hour clock etc.).

Ah, thanks. That did the trick.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

2.53 64 bit has those American timestamps again

[Dirk Munk]

Unfortunately the 64 bit 2.53 version has the American date and time 
stamps again, instead of the date and time stamps I set up in the 
Windows regional settings (24 hour clock etc.).

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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14/02/2019 19:13:

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14/02/2019 14:51:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while 
ago, I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that 
became garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 
didn't help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much 
bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB 
(2097152), and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), 
the browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.



What's the difference with the "let SM manage the size of my cache" 
preference?


That is the disk cache, so files on disk, I'm talking about the 
memory cache, in RAM.



Maybe that setting is Windows only, because on my Mac I see SM using a 
lot of RAM between 3 and 5 GB (I have 24 GB) and it's not so fast 
anyway (it often freezes), even if the value for 
"browser.cache.memory.capacity" is "20".


That is the reason Seamonkey is freezing. Change the value to 2097152 (2 
GB), and see what happens. Seamonkey will only use as much as it needs.



Shouldn't be the OS to decide the amount of RAM?


No, every professional operating system has ways to limit the memory use 
(and other resources) of an application or a user. Suppose you change 
the memory cache to 10GB, then Seamonkey will request memory when it 
needs it, until that 10GB is consumed. It will then have to swap to disk.




Do you know what "browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size" is about?


If I interpret this correctly, it is the maximum size of an element on a 
web page. Each web page has elements like photographs etc. that are 
cached, but if such an element is bigger then this max_entry_size it 
will not be cached.




Thank you.


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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Ray_Net wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14-02-19 19:13:

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14/02/2019 14:51:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while 
ago, I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that 
became garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 
didn't help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much 
bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB 
(2097152), and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), 
the browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.



What's the difference with the "let SM manage the size of my cache" 
preference?


That is the disk cache, so files on disk, I'm talking about the 
memory cache, in RAM.


I see in Preferences ONLY disk-cache-length ... Cannot see an option 
for memory-cache-length.

I see in about:config
browser.cache.memory.capacity with 200 000
I think that this is the same length than the disk cache.


Yes, you have to change the value with about:config.

The value of the disk cache and the memory cache do not have to be the same.

My notebook has 32GB, and I use the browser a lot. So why limit the 
memory cache to a low value?


Perhaps it should be an option in the Preferences window.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 2/14/2019 3:22 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while ago, I
experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that became garbled,
very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 didn't help, so I
tried to figure out what might be the cause.

Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser cache
setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much bigger.

I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB (2097152), and
all problems are gone.


What is the name of the config file?


Type about:config where you normally type the URL of a web site.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Gabriel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 14/02/2019 14:51:

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while ago, 
I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that became 
garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 didn't 
help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much 
bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB (2097152), 
and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), the 
browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.



What's the difference with the "let SM manage the size of my cache" 
preference?


That is the disk cache, so files on disk, I'm talking about the memory 
cache, in RAM.

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

Re: Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

Dirk Munk wrote:

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while ago, 
I  experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that became 
garbled, very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 didn't 
help, so I tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser 
cache setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB (2097152), 
and all problems are gone.
After increasing browser.cache.memory.capacity to 4 GB (4194304), the 
browser runs even more smoothly. Nice.

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

Memory cache was reset after upgrade

[Dirk Munk]

I'm using the 64 bit builds of WG9s.

I'm very happy with them in general.

However, after installing a new version of 2.49.5 a short while ago, I  
experienced some weird problems like keystrokes that became garbled, 
very sluggish responses etc. A new upgrade to 2.53 didn't help, so I 
tried to figure out what might be the cause.


Then I had a hunch, and I checked the config file for the browser cache 
setting. It was just about 0.5 GB, and I'm sure it was much bigger.


I've now increased browser.cache.memory.capacity to 2 GB (2097152), and 
all problems are gone.

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

Which 64 bit version to use now?

[Dirk Munk]

WG9s currently has a 2.49.5, a 2.53, and a 2.57 64 bit version on his 
web site.


I'm currently using a previous 2.49.5 version.

How stable is the 2.53 version?

I suppose it is a bit early for the 2.57 version?


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

Re: Request for small new feature in Address Book

[Dirk Munk]

Daniel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 4/10/2018 6:27 PM:

Daniel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 30/09/2018 9:17 PM:

meagain wrote:

 Original Message 

EE wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:
When you want to send a message, you have the option to encrypt 
the message with "Security", assuming you and the other party 
have set up Digital Signing.


It would be a nice feature if you could have an option "always 
send encrypted" with every address book entry.


An alternative would be a general setting "always send 
encrypted if possible", which means the mail program has to 
look if a certificate has been stored, and then send encrypted 
if a certificate has been found.


What about just having a general "Notes" section in there? Then 
one could add any information of any sort in there. The MacOS 
contact list has a Notes area and it is very useful.



Thank you, but that is not the point.

For legal reasons, certain email traffic must be encrypted, from 
end point to end point. For instance emails between me and my 
doctor. Assuming we have both set up digital signing, any email 
traffic between us should *always* be encrypted, automatically. I 
should not have to choose Security > Encrypt This Message to get 
encryption.


You want this feature setup on a per-recipient basis just like 
"prefers to receive mail as " .




Yes, that would be an option.

However, I also have an alternative option.

When you want to send each other encrypted emails, you have to 
exchange the certificates first. So I have to send the recipient a 
signed email message, and he has to send me a signed email message 
as well. As soon as I receive his signed email message, its 
certificate will be stored on my computer. My certificate will have 
been stored on his computer.


 From that moment on we can send each other encrypted email messages.

Now suppose I want to send this recipient an email message. Then 
mail could look in the stored certificates for his certificate. 
When found, mail could automatically send the message encrypted.


That is an even cleaner way of setting it up. No need to add an 
entry to the address book, everything is done automatically.


The whole idea of encrypted messaging intregees me!!

Let's say you, Dirk, and I want to talk encrypted. I might give you 
a Plain language call saying lets go encrypted. You send me your key 
and I send you mine, and we're off and communicating.


However, if someone else is "watching", be it on my computer, on 
your computer or somewhere in between, they also have both keys, so 
can "see" what we're saying.


Or am I mis-understanding the situation?? (That's a definite 
possibility!!)


This is how it works.

First you obtain an email certificate, for instance from Comodo:

https://www.comodo.com/home/email-security/free-email-certificate.php

You will get an email with a clickable link. It will load the 
certificate on your PC.


Remember that you have to obtain a certificate for each email account 
you want to secure!


You then go to the account of this email address in Edit > Mail & 
Newsgroup Account Settings


Click on Security, and a small window will open.

Now you can select the certificate with 'Digital Signing' and 
'Encryption'.


You can choose the setting 'Digitally sign messages (by default)', 
but I noticed that there are email programs that can't handle signed 
messages properly, and will garble attachments.


Now compose a small message to the other party you want to exchange 
encrypted messages with. Before you send it, choose "Digitally Sign 
This Message' from the Security tab in your compose window.


The other party has to follow the same steps.

Once you have exchanged these first two signed messages, you can send 
another message, but choose 'Encrypt This Message'. The message will 
now be send encrypted, and can not be read anywhere except on the 
end-points. So if your provider has a web interface for your mail 
account, these messages will not turn up as readable there.


"... and can not be read anywhere except on the end-points" ... or by 
anybody who was "listening" when the "Digital Signing" certificates 
were obtained/exchanged!




Obtained, I don't know. Exchanged not, as far as I know. Normally these 
keys are a pair, a public key you exchange, and a private key that is 
stored on your PC.

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

Re: Request for small new feature in Address Book

[Dirk Munk]

Daniel wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote on 30/09/2018 9:17 PM:

meagain wrote:

 Original Message 

EE wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:
When you want to send a message, you have the option to encrypt 
the message with "Security", assuming you and the other party 
have set up Digital Signing.


It would be a nice feature if you could have an option "always 
send encrypted" with every address book entry.


An alternative would be a general setting "always send encrypted 
if possible", which means the mail program has to look if a 
certificate has been stored, and then send encrypted if a 
certificate has been found.


What about just having a general "Notes" section in there? Then 
one could add any information of any sort in there. The MacOS 
contact list has a Notes area and it is very useful.



Thank you, but that is not the point.

For legal reasons, certain email traffic must be encrypted, from 
end point to end point. For instance emails between me and my 
doctor. Assuming we have both set up digital signing, any email 
traffic between us should *always* be encrypted, automatically. I 
should not have to choose Security > Encrypt This Message to get 
encryption.


You want this feature setup on a per-recipient basis just like 
"prefers to receive mail as " .




Yes, that would be an option.

However, I also have an alternative option.

When you want to send each other encrypted emails, you have to 
exchange the certificates first. So I have to send the recipient a 
signed email message, and he has to send me a signed email message as 
well. As soon as I receive his signed email message, its certificate 
will be stored on my computer. My certificate will have been stored 
on his computer.


 From that moment on we can send each other encrypted email messages.

Now suppose I want to send this recipient an email message. Then mail 
could look in the stored certificates for his certificate. When 
found, mail could automatically send the message encrypted.


That is an even cleaner way of setting it up. No need to add an entry 
to the address book, everything is done automatically.


The whole idea of encrypted messaging intregees me!!

Let's say you, Dirk, and I want to talk encrypted. I might give you a 
Plain language call saying lets go encrypted. You send me your key and 
I send you mine, and we're off and communicating.


However, if someone else is "watching", be it on my computer, on your 
computer or somewhere in between, they also have both keys, so can 
"see" what we're saying.


Or am I mis-understanding the situation?? (That's a definite 
possibility!!)


This is how it works.

First you obtain an email certificate, for instance from Comodo:

https://www.comodo.com/home/email-security/free-email-certificate.php

You will get an email with a clickable link. It will load the 
certificate on your PC.


Remember that you have to obtain a certificate for each email account 
you want to secure!


You then go to the account of this email address in Edit > Mail & 
Newsgroup Account Settings


Click on Security, and a small window will open.

Now you can select the certificate with 'Digital Signing' and 'Encryption'.

You can choose the setting 'Digitally sign messages (by default)', but I 
noticed that there are email programs that can't handle signed messages 
properly, and will garble attachments.


Now compose a small message to the other party you want to exchange 
encrypted messages with. Before you send it, choose "Digitally Sign This 
Message' from the Security tab in your compose window.


The other party has to follow the same steps.

Once you have exchanged these first two signed messages, you can send 
another message, but choose 'Encrypt This Message'. The message will now 
be send encrypted, and can not be read anywhere except on the 
end-points. So if your provider has a web interface for your mail 
account, these messages will not turn up as readable there.




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

Re: find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Jim Dell wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 10/01/2018 01:37 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

It doesn't work in the HTML source window.


I don't believe it has ever worked there.
I just dug thru the dust to my WinXP machine with SeaMonkey 2.5.
Does not work in source window.


Well, find & replace did work with the previous build that I had 
installed. Not being able to use Find and Find & Replace in the 
source code is a bit silly of course.






I tried a new profile, didn't change anything.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Works fine here

https://imgur.com/a/viqOu6I

Try a new test profile. Also check if it is theme or add-on related.

Open the error console and see if you spot something when you 
press ctrl-f or select the menu. For the menu to work you need to 
select something.


If you have a reproducible test case with a new profile open a 
bug. You can always open one but with exiting profiles and x 
add-ons in them it will probably not be fixed if it can't be 
reproduced by a dev immediately.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the 
Find function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.
With the latest build, 20180923041539, Find & Replace is broken 
as well!!


Not good, the composer becomes quite useless this way.






I have experienced that when I tried saving a web page and trying to 
then edit it while the page is still displaying in the browser.


How was the HTML created initially?
Have you tried CTRL-F?

Jim


No, I did not use ctrl-F. I rarely use short cuts, I prefer using the mouse.

I don't know how the HTML was made. Sometimes I open a web page in the 
composer to get the exact specification of an image, so Find .jpg. The 
small version of the image is visible, but a larger version in a slide 
show can not be saved in the normal way.


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

Re: find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Ray_Net wrote:

Jim Dell wrote on 02-10-18 16:47:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 10/01/2018 01:37 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

It doesn't work in the HTML source window.


I don't believe it has ever worked there.
I just dug thru the dust to my WinXP machine with SeaMonkey 2.5.
Does not work in source window.


Well, find & replace did work with the previous build that I had 
installed. Not being able to use Find and Find & Replace in the 
source code is a bit silly of course.






I tried a new profile, didn't change anything.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Works fine here

https://imgur.com/a/viqOu6I

Try a new test profile. Also check if it is theme or add-on related.

Open the error console and see if you spot something when you 
press ctrl-f or select the menu. For the menu to work you need to 
select something.


If you have a reproducible test case with a new profile open a 
bug. You can always open one but with exiting profiles and x 
add-ons in them it will probably not be fixed if it can't be 
reproduced by a dev immediately.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the 
Find function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.
With the latest build, 20180923041539, Find & Replace is broken 
as well!!


Not good, the composer becomes quite useless this way.






I have experienced that when I tried saving a web page and trying to 
then edit it while the page is still displaying in the browser.


How was the HTML created initially?
Have you tried CTRL-F?

Jim
CTRL-F is the same as the choice "Find" not greyed but cannot be used 
= no-action.

But "Find and Replace" is OK.

Are you in the "HTML Source" when you try CTRL-F ?


I tried ctrl-F as well, makes no difference. I'm using HTML source.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 10/01/2018 01:37 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

It doesn't work in the HTML source window.


I don't believe it has ever worked there.
I just dug thru the dust to my WinXP machine with SeaMonkey 2.5.
Does not work in source window.


Well, find & replace did work with the previous build that I had 
installed. Not being able to use Find and Find & Replace in the source 
code is a bit silly of course.






I tried a new profile, didn't change anything.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Works fine here

https://imgur.com/a/viqOu6I

Try a new test profile. Also check if it is theme or add-on related.

Open the error console and see if you spot something when you press 
ctrl-f or select the menu. For the menu to work you need to select 
something.


If you have a reproducible test case with a new profile open a bug. 
You can always open one but with exiting profiles and x add-ons in 
them it will probably not be fixed if it can't be reproduced by a 
dev immediately.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the 
Find function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.
With the latest build, 20180923041539, Find & Replace is broken as 
well!!


Not good, the composer becomes quite useless this way.






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

Re: find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

It doesn't work in the HTML source window.

I tried a new profile, didn't change anything.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Works fine here

https://imgur.com/a/viqOu6I

Try a new test profile. Also check if it is theme or add-on related.

Open the error console and see if you spot something when you press 
ctrl-f or select the menu. For the menu to work you need to select 
something.


If you have a reproducible test case with a new profile open a bug. 
You can always open one but with exiting profiles and x add-ons in 
them it will probably not be fixed if it can't be reproduced by a dev 
immediately.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the Find 
function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.
With the latest build, 20180923041539, Find & Replace is broken as 
well!!


Not good, the composer becomes quite useless this way.


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

Re: find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Dirk Munk wrote:

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the Find 
function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.

With the latest build, 20180923041539, Find & Replace is broken as well!!

Not good, the composer becomes quite useless this way.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Request for small new feature in Address Book

[Dirk Munk]

meagain wrote:

 Original Message 

EE wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:
When you want to send a message, you have the option to encrypt the 
message with "Security", assuming you and the other party have set 
up Digital Signing.


It would be a nice feature if you could have an option "always send 
encrypted" with every address book entry.


An alternative would be a general setting "always send encrypted if 
possible", which means the mail program has to look if a 
certificate has been stored, and then send encrypted if a 
certificate has been found.


What about just having a general "Notes" section in there? Then one 
could add any information of any sort in there.  The MacOS contact 
list has a Notes area and it is very useful.



Thank you, but that is not the point.

For legal reasons, certain email traffic must be encrypted, from end 
point to end point. For instance emails between me and my doctor. 
Assuming we have both set up digital signing, any email traffic 
between us should *always* be encrypted, automatically. I should not 
have to choose Security > Encrypt This Message to get encryption.


You want this feature setup on a per-recipient basis just like 
"prefers to receive mail as " .




Yes, that would be an option.

However, I also have an alternative option.

When you want to send each other encrypted emails, you have to exchange 
the certificates first. So I have to send the recipient a signed email 
message, and he has to send me a signed email message as well. As soon 
as I receive his signed email message, its certificate will be stored on 
my computer. My certificate will have been stored on his computer.


From that moment on we can send each other encrypted email messages.

Now suppose I want to send this recipient an email message. Then mail 
could look in the stored certificates for his certificate. When found, 
mail could automatically send the message encrypted.


That is an even cleaner way of setting it up. No need to add an entry to 
the address book, everything is done automatically.

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

Re: Request for small new feature in Address Book

[Dirk Munk]

EE wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:
When you want to send a message, you have the option to encrypt the 
message with "Security", assuming you and the other party have set up 
Digital Signing.


It would be a nice feature if you could have an option "always send 
encrypted" with every address book entry.


An alternative would be a general setting "always send encrypted if 
possible", which means the mail program has to look if a certificate 
has been stored, and then send encrypted if a certificate has been 
found.


What about just having a general "Notes" section in there?  Then one 
could add any information of any sort in there.  The MacOS contact 
list has a Notes area and it is very useful.



Thank you, but that is not the point.

For legal reasons, certain email traffic must be encrypted, from end 
point to end point. For instance emails between me and my doctor. 
Assuming we have both set up digital signing, any email traffic between 
us should *always* be encrypted, automatically. I should not have to 
choose Security > Encrypt This Message to get encryption.

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

Request for small new feature in Address Book

[Dirk Munk]

When you want to send a message, you have the option to encrypt the 
message with "Security", assuming you and the other party have set up 
Digital Signing.


It would be a nice feature if you could have an option "always send 
encrypted" with every address book entry.


An alternative would be a general setting "always send encrypted if 
possible", which means the mail program has to look if a certificate has 
been stored, and then send encrypted if a certificate has been found.

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

find doesn't work in composer

[Dirk Munk]

Seamonkey 64 bit 2.49.5 Build identifier: 20180727042454

When I open a web page in the composer (File > Edit page), the Find 
function doesn't work. Find & Replace however does work.

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

Re: Which version of SQLite?

[Dirk Munk]

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 08/05/2018 11:49 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 08/04/2018 10:40 AM, Mason83 wrote:

On 04/08/2018 11:21, Dirk Munk wrote:


Seamonkey is using SQLlite for its own 'housekeeping'.

Which version is it using?


I couldn't find the answer, but these links might provide
some information:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_Operational_Information_Database:_SQLite 


https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM/Storage

Regards.



Don't know if it solves the OP's problem.
But you may have "rattled my cage" in right direction to solve one 
of mine ;}

I've been trying to have bookmarks available to outside applications.
SeaMonkey uses JSON if you want all the data. HTML export loses some 
implied data for *MY* purposes.

What's comical is my current destination program
 [CherryTree {http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/}]
uses SQLite natively. So importing relevant information should be 
much more straight forward, even I don't know SQLite *YET* !


*THANK YOU*



I installed SQLiteStudio for Windows, but I see you're using Linux.


It is evidently available as an Ubuntu PPA, but I'm using Debian.
I'm investigating for an approved method for installing from A PPA.
I've found some methods but they have too much "hand waving" for me to 
attempt comfortably. I have an old WinXP machine. Is that suitable for 
the Windows version?


According to heir web page, yes, is should work under XP as well.


Thank you.



When I want to open a database, SQLiteStudio wants to know if it is 
an SQLite 2 or SQLite 3 database. I don't want to corrupt anything, 
so it would be nice to know which version Seamonkey is usin.


The supplies links are not helpful in that respect, they are about 
SQLite in general.





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

Re: Which version of SQLite?

[Dirk Munk]

Richard Owlett wrote:

On 08/04/2018 10:40 AM, Mason83 wrote:

On 04/08/2018 11:21, Dirk Munk wrote:


Seamonkey is using SQLlite for its own 'housekeeping'.

Which version is it using?


I couldn't find the answer, but these links might provide
some information:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_Operational_Information_Database:_SQLite 


https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM/Storage

Regards.



Don't know if it solves the OP's problem.
But you may have "rattled my cage" in right direction to solve one of 
mine ;}

I've been trying to have bookmarks available to outside applications.
SeaMonkey uses JSON if you want all the data. HTML export loses some 
implied data for *MY* purposes.

What's comical is my current destination program
 [CherryTree {http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/}]
uses SQLite natively. So importing relevant information should be much 
more straight forward, even I don't know SQLite *YET* !


*THANK YOU*



I installed SQLiteStudio for Windows, but I see you're using Linux.

When I want to open a database, SQLiteStudio wants to know if it is an 
SQLite 2 or SQLite 3 database. I don't want to corrupt anything, so it 
would be nice to know which version Seamonkey is usin.


The supplies links are not helpful in that respect, they are about 
SQLite in general.

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

Which version of SQLite?

[Dirk Munk]

Seamonkey is using SQLlite for its own 'housekeeping'.

Which version is it using?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

How to set up a filter for 'empty' spam messages?

[Dirk Munk]

At the moment I'm receiving 10, 20 spam message per day. They all have 
in common that all contents is remote, the message itself is empty. To 
see the message I have to use the option to download the contents.


Setting up filters is very difficult, the messages come from all kind of 
stupid senders. It's difficult to find anything in the headers that you 
can use as a filter setting.


Is it possible to define a filter that notices that all contents of the 
message is remote? With that I can put all these messages in the trash 
folder at once.

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

Re: Fixing mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

Dirk Munk wrote:
Sometime mail messages become garbled. There was a command in one of 
the menus that would check all messages in a folder, and fix them.


For some reason I can't find that command now, can someone help me out?



Found it, it is the 'Repair Folder' option in the folder properties.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey 2.49.3 released

[Dirk Munk]

Thanks FRG,

At the moment I'm running 64 bit 2.49.3 (Build identifier: 20180321130026).

Would the 2.49.5 version on the WG9s be the best update, considering 
stability etc.?



Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> I'd like to request please to contact the 64-bit team and make a 
join release?


If you refer to https://www.m64.info/index.php/seamonkey-64-bit-download
then to everyone: Stop promoting or even mentioning this site as an 
alternative. They are not in any way associated with the SeaMonkey 
project. Previously they just copied Adrians builds without giving 
credit. Now they just host completely broken alpha comm-central 
nightly builds from 
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-central-trunk/


You might even pick up a trojan any day from the look of the site.

Providing Windows x64 builds is tracked in:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482143

For 2.49.x it will not happen on the current infrastucture. We are 
building a new one outside of mozilla space but this still takes some 
time.


If you want x64 takes Bills 2.49.x or 2.53 builds:

http://www.wg9s.com/comm-esr/

2.53 still has some problems but shapes up nicely. It has about 260 
backported patches applied to the latest Fx 56 and SeaMonkey 2.53 
sources but is not completely up to date wrt security. Consider it 
beta. 2.57 will be the next version after the last 2.49 but still 
months away. 2.57 will be provided in offical x64 versions for Linux 
and Windows (or at least that is the plan).


FRG



Saul Luizaga wrote:
I'd like to request please to contact the 64-bit team and make a join 
release? They're a bit ahead but not making much progress and the 
releases are betas and alphas by their functioning, buggy, and really 
unstable in general, so this stable releases maybe will help them in 
turn, meanwhile we get good stable 64-bit versions that I'd prefer to 
use, the 4 GB RAM limitation causes the Browser to crash, I think, 
specially when many flash video tabs are open, the internal flash 
player of SeaMonkey sucks, laggy, and slow, and eventually makes 
SeaMonkey crash to be honest, so I use Adobe Flash Player, much 
better, but eventually crashes too.


Edmund Wong wrote:

Greetings,

The SeaMonkey Project is pleased to announce the release of SeaMonkey
2.49.3!

For a more complete list of changes in SeaMonkey 2.49.3, see the What's
New in SeaMonkey 2.49.3 section of the Release Notes [2], which also
contain a list of known issues and answers to frequently asked
questions. For a more general overview of the SeaMonkey project (and
screen shots!), visit www.seamonkey-project.org.

It's been a very difficult release (but it still can't compare with
2.46...  )


Links:
[1] - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/2.49.3
[2] - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey2.49.3/





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

Fixing mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

Sometime mail messages become garbled. There was a command in one of the 
menus that would check all messages in a folder, and fix them.


For some reason I can't find that command now, can someone help me out?


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

Where are the signs of signed messages stored?

[Dirk Munk]

I have set up my email for being able to send and receive encrypted 
email messages.


(Mail & newsgroup account settings > Security)

All my messages are signed now, and in order to be able to send an 
encrypted message, the recipient has to send me one unencrypted signed 
message first. That sign will be stored on my PC, but where is it 
stored, and can I see how many on those signs have been stored so far?

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

Re: Sophos reports an ROP problem, and shuts Seamonkey down.

[Dirk Munk]

Dirk Munk wrote:
I have Sophos anti-virus (etc.) running on my PC, and a few days ago 
it reported a ROP problem with Seamonkey and closed it down.


After restarting Seamonkey everything was fine again.

Sophos gave this trace of the problem:

Mitigation   ROP

Platform 10.0.17134/x64 v614 06_3a
PID  18136
Application  C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\seamonkey.exe
Description  SeaMonkey 2.49.3

Callee Type  LoadLibrary

Stack Trace
#  Address  Module   Location
--   


1  7FFD8A0FBC4D KernelBase.dll
2  7FFD8D6927D7 ntdll.dll
3  7FFD8D67AC26 ntdll.dll    __C_specific_handler +0x96
4  7FFD8D68EDCD ntdll.dll    __chkstk +0x11d
5  7FFD8D5F6C86 ntdll.dll
6  7FFD8D68DCFE ntdll.dll KiUserExceptionDispatcher +0x2e

7  7FFD3CFAF0FD xul.dll
    80791000 CMP  BYTE 
[RCX+0x10], 0x0

    7465 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    83b91c2b00   CMP  DWORD 
[RCX+0x2b1c], 0x0

    7416 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf122
    498bc0   MOV  RAX, R8
    482500f0 AND  RAX, 
0xf000

    488b4008 MOV  RAX, [RAX+0x8]
    83b8700800   CMP  DWORD 
[RAX+0x870], 0x0

    7446 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    4d85c0   TEST R8, R8
    740c JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf133
    4881cae8ff0f00   OR   RDX, 0xfffe8
    833a01   CMP  DWORD [RDX], 
0x1

    7435 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    498bc0   MOV  RAX, R8
    4981e0a0c0   AND  R8, 
0xc0a0


8  7FFD3A505F69 xul.dll
9  7FFD3A50611B xul.dll
10 7FFD3CFF9A07 xul.dll

Process Trace
1  C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\seamonkey.exe [18136]
2  C:\Windows\explorer.exe [11128]
3  C:\Windows\System32\userinit.exe [10980]
4  C:\Windows\System32\winlogon.exe [812]
winlogon.exe

Thumbprint
6b7c6ddb5008f8cfec2b72d6c65841972bb2c3f0f227ed14ea6b1187aec1429d


This is a security problem. According to Sophos, Seamonkey is doing 
something it should not be doing, perhaps executing a piece of malicious 
code from a web site?


I've seen the problem more often now, and I wonder if someone can have a 
look at it?

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

Sophos reports an ROP problem, and shuts Seamonkey down.

[Dirk Munk]

I have Sophos anti-virus (etc.) running on my PC, and a few days ago it 
reported a ROP problem with Seamonkey and closed it down.


After restarting Seamonkey everything was fine again.

Sophos gave this trace of the problem:

Mitigation   ROP

Platform 10.0.17134/x64 v614 06_3a
PID  18136
Application  C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\seamonkey.exe
Description  SeaMonkey 2.49.3

Callee Type  LoadLibrary

Stack Trace
#  Address  Module   Location
--   


1  7FFD8A0FBC4D KernelBase.dll
2  7FFD8D6927D7 ntdll.dll
3  7FFD8D67AC26 ntdll.dll    __C_specific_handler +0x96
4  7FFD8D68EDCD ntdll.dll    __chkstk +0x11d
5  7FFD8D5F6C86 ntdll.dll
6  7FFD8D68DCFE ntdll.dll KiUserExceptionDispatcher +0x2e

7  7FFD3CFAF0FD xul.dll
    80791000 CMP  BYTE 
[RCX+0x10], 0x0

    7465 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    83b91c2b00   CMP  DWORD 
[RCX+0x2b1c], 0x0

    7416 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf122
    498bc0   MOV  RAX, R8
    482500f0 AND  RAX, 
0xf000

    488b4008 MOV  RAX, [RAX+0x8]
    83b8700800   CMP  DWORD 
[RAX+0x870], 0x0

    7446 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    4d85c0   TEST R8, R8
    740c JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf133
    4881cae8ff0f00   OR   RDX, 0xfffe8
    833a01   CMP  DWORD [RDX], 0x1
    7435 JZ 0x7ffd3cfaf168
    498bc0   MOV  RAX, R8
    4981e0a0c0   AND  R8, 
0xc0a0


8  7FFD3A505F69 xul.dll
9  7FFD3A50611B xul.dll
10 7FFD3CFF9A07 xul.dll

Process Trace
1  C:\Program Files\SeaMonkey\seamonkey.exe [18136]
2  C:\Windows\explorer.exe [11128]
3  C:\Windows\System32\userinit.exe [10980]
4  C:\Windows\System32\winlogon.exe [812]
winlogon.exe

Thumbprint
6b7c6ddb5008f8cfec2b72d6c65841972bb2c3f0f227ed14ea6b1187aec1429d


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

Re: running Seamonkey 2.49.3 Windows 64 bit

[Dirk Munk]

Yes indeed!

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> 2.49.3?
>
> Where did you get this 64bit package from?

Probably from here:

https://www.wg9s.com/comm-esr/

FRG


Edmund Wong wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I really wish the developers would start producing official 64 bit
versions of Seamonkey. How many people are still using a 32 bit version
of Windows? Since Windows 7, 64 bit has become the standard Windows
version, older Windows versions are becoming obsolete now. I would 
guess

that the majority of Seamonkey users has a 64 bit version of Windows on
their computer.


2.49.3?

Where did you get this 64bit package from?

I am working on making official packages for both Linux64 and Windows64.
It is unfortunately going slow as there are a lot of stuff happening
at the same time.

Edmund



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

running Seamonkey 2.49.3 Windows 64 bit

[Dirk Munk]

At the moment I'm running Seamonkey 2.49.3 Windows 64 bit.

I've been using 64 bit versions of Seamonkey quite some time now, and I 
hardly ever had any problems with them.
The only problem is to find them, so many people seem to be producing 
their own version (thanks for doing so by the way).


I really wish the developers would start producing official 64 bit 
versions of Seamonkey. How many people are still using a 32 bit version 
of Windows? Since Windows 7, 64 bit has become the standard Windows 
version, older Windows versions are becoming obsolete now. I would guess 
that the majority of Seamonkey users has a 64 bit version of Windows on 
their computer.


At the moment my Seamonkey instance has a memory footprint of almost 6 
GB, that is 50% than available with a 32 bit version.



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

Re: Kaspersky not interacting well with SeaMonkey

[Dirk Munk]

Roger Fink wrote:
I just installed Kaspersky Free anti-virus in place of Avast Free, and 
unlike the interaction with the other three browsers that are 
installed on this Win7-32 machine, it doesn't work well with SeaMonkey 
(or perhaps better said, SeaMonkey doesn't work well with Kaspersky). 
I would guess that 1/2 of my connections are flagged as untrusted, 
including common sites such as Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance and the New 
York Times. Some of these flagged connections can be successfully 
overwritten by creating an exception, but others can't, and still 
others are "unsuccessfully overwritten" in that javascript doesn't 
work on the resulting page.


One of the other installed browsers is Pale Moon. Its bookmarks are 
identical to SeaMonkey, but they all work perfectly. I can't nor 
should I make changes to Kaspersky to accommodate different browsers 
but I'm wondering if there is some configuration in SeaMonkey that I 
can change that would put things right.


btw, Kaspersky was installed after the upgrade to 49.2 so I don't know 
whether this is a version-related problem or not (I suspect not).
You might try Sophos home, also free, and by one of the most well known 
professional anti virus producers.

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

Re: SeaMonkey 2.49.2 released!

[Dirk Munk]

Edmund Wong wrote:

Greetings,

After a not so long a delay, for which we apologize, the SeaMonkey
Project is pleased to announce the release of SeaMonkey 2.49.2!

So please check out [1] or [2].

Updates are still not available via Check-for-updates unfortunately.

Thanks to all involved,

Edmund

Links:
[1] - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/2.49.2
[2] - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/seamonkey2.49.2/


There doesn't seem to be a 64 bit Windows versions anywhere, not a 
nightly build either.


Is there a workable 64 bit version that can be recommended?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: using HTML as default in mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

Ed Mullen wrote:
On 12/15/2017 at 1:33 PM, Dirk Munk created this epitome of digital 
genius:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/14/17 7:46 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Hartmut Figge wrote:

Dirk Munk:


There used to be a setting that made HTML the default setting when
sending a mail message. However that setting no longer exists.

Really? In my SM-Trunk it is still there.
http://www.triffids.de/pub/screenshot/sm171215.png

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:59.0) Gecko/2017121418 
SeaMonkey/2.56a1-h


Hartmut


You're right, the composing itself is in HTML. But the sending 
process will change it to plain text by default.


Edit > Preferences > Mail & Newsgroups > Send Format in my SM 2.49.1.




My setting is plain text and HTML, but the message appears in plain 
text. I would expect to see the HTML version.


Are you sure there is actually any HTML fomatting in the message? Edit 
- Preferences - Mai & Newsgroups - Send Format.  Look at the bottom 
check box "Automatically send the message as plain text ..."




Yes, indeed I overlooked that setting. I hope this does the trick. Thanks!
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: using HTML as default in mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

WaltS48 wrote:

On 12/14/17 7:46 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Hartmut Figge wrote:

Dirk Munk:


There used to be a setting that made HTML the default setting when
sending a mail message. However that setting no longer exists.

Really? In my SM-Trunk it is still there.
http://www.triffids.de/pub/screenshot/sm171215.png

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:59.0) Gecko/2017121418 
SeaMonkey/2.56a1-h


Hartmut


You're right, the composing itself is in HTML. But the sending 
process will change it to plain text by default.


Edit > Preferences > Mail & Newsgroups > Send Format in my SM 2.49.1.




My setting is plain text and HTML, but the message appears in plain 
text. I would expect to see the HTML version.

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

Re: using HTML as default in mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

Hartmut Figge wrote:

Dirk Munk:


There used to be a setting that made HTML the default setting when
sending a mail message. However that setting no longer exists.

Really? In my SM-Trunk it is still there.
http://www.triffids.de/pub/screenshot/sm171215.png

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:59.0) Gecko/2017121418 SeaMonkey/2.56a1-h

Hartmut


You're right, the composing itself is in HTML. But the sending process 
will change it to plain text by default.

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

using HTML as default in mail messages

[Dirk Munk]

There used to be a setting that made HTML the default setting when 
sending a mail message. However that setting no longer exists.


I know I can add the "likes to receive in HTML" setting in address book 
entries, and I can use the HTML option setting when sending te message.


But I would like to make HTML my standard setting for all messages. If a 
message should be send unformatted, then I can always choose to do so.


Is there a setting that I can use to achieve this?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

Daniel wrote:

On 21/10/2017 2:08 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Daniel wrote:

On 20/10/2017 1:40 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Thanks, but there is no 64 bit Windows version.
The Windows version is still developed in 32 bit, and at the very 
end of

the testing a 64 bit version is produced?

How many 32 bit Windows systems are still around? Can't be that 
many, XP

and Vista were primarily used as 32 bit versions, but I guess from
Windows 7 onwards people installed 64 bit versions.


While this HP 6730b is a 64bit machine, the OS that was installed on
it when I brought it eight years ago was Win7 WOW, which, I believe,
is a 32bit OS modified to run on a 64bit machine

Being long-term unemployed (or under-employed), my financial situation
does not allow me to update my system every five years or so!! ;-(


You should have received many emails from MS enabling you to install
Windows 10. And indeed, by completely reinstalling Windows you can use
64bit Windows 10. If possible add some memory, and you want recognize
your PC, so much faster can it be. When I went from Windows 7 to Windows
8, it was remarkable to how much snappier Windows was. And that was from
64 bit Win 7 to 64 bit Win 8 on a notebook with 32GB.


If only, Dirk, if only!!

When I brought this Laptop, its RAM was max'ed out at 4GB (Two slots 
each with 2GB).


Over time, I did get messages from MS advising my OS would be updated 
soon, but it never has been. One of my sisters also brought a Laptop 
with Win7 on it and has been updated through Win 8, Win 8.1 and Win 10 
... but I'm still getting (or resumed getting) Win7 updates each month!!


Maybe it's because I'm WOW but she might have been x64 to start with!!

Oh, well. If I had my d'rathers, I'd be using one or other of the 
Linux OS's I have installed on this laptop to connect to the Internet!!




If you would install a 64 bit Windows, that would already free 500MB of 
RAM. The problem with 32 bit Windows is that the upper 500MB or so of 
your RAM cannot be addressed, because it is used by the hardware. Going 
to a 64 bit Windows resolves this problem.


You may think that your laptop has a max of 4GB, but actually it is very 
likely you can upgrade to 8GB. There are 4GB DDR2 sodimm modules around 
(I assume your laptop has DDR2 RAM), and with two of those you should be 
able to get 8GB. I did it with a Fujitsu laptop, it worked like a dream. 
A very quick search on ebay learned me that such a kit costs about $100.


There is a MS update checker to see if your laptop supports Windows 10, 
try to run it and see what happens.



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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

That would be great FRG, perhaps with the use of wetransfer.com ?

Dirk

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
I am with you but providing 64 bit versions with the current 
infrastructure is not trivial. Also mapi is still broken in all TB and 
SeaMonkey 64 bit versions. This will be resolved over time. Even 
Firefox only switched the x86 users to x64 with the current version.


If you need a 64 bit version I can provide a local build. In fact 
using it right now :)


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Thanks, but there is no 64 bit Windows version.
The Windows version is still developed in 32 bit, and at the very end 
of the testing a 64 bit version is produced?


How many 32 bit Windows systems are still around? Can't be that many, 
XP and Vista were primarily used as 32 bit versions, but I guess from 
Windows 7 onwards people installed 64 bit versions.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> Can you recommend any of these?

No. 2.53 is the end of the line for probably a few months to a year 
at least. Mozilla really broke the code with all the removals and 
more to come. I have 2.55 patched up with a bunch of interim fixes 
but most add-ons are broken.


Use 2.49.1 candidate 4 if you want a stable release now. I can 
provide a 2.53 but if you are after security updates this will only 
be good till Fx 57 is released.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Thanks FRG.

At present I'm using 2.53a1, and I've noticed there are 2.54a1 and 
2.55a1 versions.


Can you recommend any of these?

Dirk

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Which version / build id? This was broken in 2.53+ for some time 
and fixed 4 weeks ago.


Bug 1379369

FRG


> Dirk Munk wrote:
When I open a link from another application, I will get a new and 
completely empty window, instead of a new tab with the web page.


I looked in the browser preferences, and everything seems to be ok.

What can cause this problem?












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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

Daniel wrote:

On 20/10/2017 1:40 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Thanks, but there is no 64 bit Windows version.
The Windows version is still developed in 32 bit, and at the very end of
the testing a 64 bit version is produced?

How many 32 bit Windows systems are still around? Can't be that many, XP
and Vista were primarily used as 32 bit versions, but I guess from
Windows 7 onwards people installed 64 bit versions.


While this HP 6730b is a 64bit machine, the OS that was installed on 
it when I brought it eight years ago was Win7 WOW, which, I believe, 
is a 32bit OS modified to run on a 64bit machine


Being long-term unemployed (or under-employed), my financial situation 
does not allow me to update my system every five years or so!! ;-(


You should have received many emails from MS enabling you to install 
Windows 10. And indeed, by completely reinstalling Windows you can use 
64bit Windows 10. If possible add some memory, and you want recognize 
your PC, so much faster can it be. When I went from Windows 7 to Windows 
8, it was remarkable to how much snappier Windows was. And that was from 
64 bit Win 7 to 64 bit Win 8 on a notebook with 32GB.

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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

chokito wrote:

The 32 bit version works fine on a 64 bit Windows 7 and other Windows systems.
I'm well aware of that. However I prefer to run 64 bit applications on a 
64 bit OS, that is the native mode.

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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

Thanks, but there is no 64 bit Windows version.
The Windows version is still developed in 32 bit, and at the very end of 
the testing a 64 bit version is produced?


How many 32 bit Windows systems are still around? Can't be that many, XP 
and Vista were primarily used as 32 bit versions, but I guess from 
Windows 7 onwards people installed 64 bit versions.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> Can you recommend any of these?

No. 2.53 is the end of the line for probably a few months to a year at 
least. Mozilla really broke the code with all the removals and more to 
come. I have 2.55 patched up with a bunch of interim fixes but most 
add-ons are broken.


Use 2.49.1 candidate 4 if you want a stable release now. I can provide 
a 2.53 but if you are after security updates this will only be good 
till Fx 57 is released.


FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:

Thanks FRG.

At present I'm using 2.53a1, and I've noticed there are 2.54a1 and 
2.55a1 versions.


Can you recommend any of these?

Dirk

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Which version / build id? This was broken in 2.53+ for some time and 
fixed 4 weeks ago.


Bug 1379369

FRG


> Dirk Munk wrote:
When I open a link from another application, I will get a new and 
completely empty window, instead of a new tab with the web page.


I looked in the browser preferences, and everything seems to be ok.

What can cause this problem?








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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

Thanks FRG.

At present I'm using 2.53a1, and I've noticed there are 2.54a1 and 
2.55a1 versions.


Can you recommend any of these?

Dirk

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Which version / build id? This was broken in 2.53+ for some time and 
fixed 4 weeks ago.


Bug 1379369

FRG


> Dirk Munk wrote:
When I open a link from another application, I will get a new and 
completely empty window, instead of a new tab with the web page.


I looked in the browser preferences, and everything seems to be ok.

What can cause this problem?




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

Re: Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

Daniel wrote:

On 17/10/2017 8:23 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:

When I open a link from another application, I will get a new and
completely empty window, instead of a new tab with the web page.

I looked in the browser preferences, and everything seems to be ok.

What can cause this problem?


Dirk, have a look at Edit->Preferences->Browser->Link Behavior->Link 
open behavior->Open links meant to open..


I think the middle setting is what you are after. And also check the 
Links from other applications setting!




Thanks, I had checked those settings. They were middle - middle - 
middle, and after the problem occurred I changed it to middle - top - 
middle. Didn't help of course, this seems to be the 2.53a1 problem.

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

Opening a link from another application will result in empty new window

[Dirk Munk]

When I open a link from another application, I will get a new and 
completely empty window, instead of a new tab with the web page.


I looked in the browser preferences, and everything seems to be ok.

What can cause this problem?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: large list of files to send

[Dirk Munk]

Smiles wrote:

good day

I have 120 photos, I can only zip 2 at a time to get under my isp 
limit of size
with out going to drop box is there a way of setting up email to send 
each one with the least amount of work


thanks
Smiles


Use www.wetransfer.com , there you can transfer up to 2GB of files for free.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: win64 contributed builds.

[Dirk Munk]

I'm running 2.53a1 (downloaded this afternoon), and I noticed that mail 
doesn't follow the HTML preference in a contact entry. I have to use 
Options to send the message in HTML.


Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Got a late beta fix and is now working in 2.53+

2.54 is broken right now. I wouldn't touch it for a week at least. 
Need some time to fix up the tree.


FRG

TCW wrote:
I reverted back to Adrian's 2.52 beta for now. Thanks for the info on 
ABP though.



 > Well, got my first crash with this new build:
 > 
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/83db8b72-a57f-4010-8ead-ae2f70170802 



Uninstall Adblock+ 2.9.1. and use 2.8.2. Currently much better 
anyway. Top crasher for Thunderbird too. Some Web extension changes 
a few weeks ago caused this. Fx also crashes now occasionally during 
shutdown.


FRG

TCW wrote:

On 8/2/2017 5:07 AM, Edmund Wong wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Just wanna mention that I've generated the very first set of
Win64 builds.

I've set up a schedule to generate both 32 and 64 bit nightlies.

But while it's building 2.53, Win64 isn't officially 'contributed'
until (tentatively) 2.54 (which gives us some time to figure the 
quirks

of Win64 building).

Please do check it out.  At this moment, I would just download
the ZIP file (as opposed to the Installer... unless you're running
it on a spare computer.)

http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-central-trunk/seamonkey-2.53a1.en-US.win64.zip 



Edmund

PS: Not entirely sure if I generated it right even if the 
about:support

shows Win64.  So feedback appreciated.  (Getting a bad feeling I
did something wrong...)



Well, got my first crash with this new build: 
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/83db8b72-a57f-4010-8ead-ae2f70170802 







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

Re: Is it possible to save draft news messages?

[Dirk Munk]

Ray_Net wrote:

Ray_Net wrote on 02-08-17 20:45:

Dirk Munk wrote on 02-08-17 15:29:

Ant wrote:

On 8/1/2017 7:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

Bill Spikowski wrote on 01-08-17 15:39:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I suppose the question is quite clear.

If I compose a normal email message, then it is automatically 
saved in

the Drafts folder, and I can save it there without sending it.

Is there something similar for news messages?


Sure, why not? File | Save As | Draft. It'll show up in the Drafts
folder for whatever account you use to post to the given newsgroup.



I don't have a "Draft" folders in any of my newsgroup accounts. 
When I
save a news message without sending it, it goes into 'local 
folders';

I can open it from there and post it easily


I think that for news ... the draft folder is under "Local Folders"


Yeah, by default unless the user changed it to somewhere else in 
"Mail & Newsgroups Account Settings".


Yes, that is true. However the message will not be saved is sending 
of the message fails. Even worse, if the message was saved as a 
draft prior to trying to send it, the saved message will also be lost.


Just to do a test, I save this message ... The Draft box of the 
"Local Folders" contain this message... then I cut internet .. then I 
try to send. "***"


The sending failed with my message still on the screen. (and still in 
the Draft box of the "Local Folders" - but with the text before the 
"***"

I reconnect internet then I send this message.

This is a correct sending now, and the Draft folder is empty.
and a copy of this message is in the "Sent box" of the "Local Folders".

The message is not lost.


In my case sending did not occur because of username/password issues. 
However SM did make contact with the news server, contrary to your test 
where you didn't have a network connection. It seems in my case SM 
thinks that sending the message was successful, even if it actually 
didn't happen.


However, the messages are in the Sent folder, so that is very good news, 
the message isn't lost.


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

Re: Is it possible to save draft news messages?

[Dirk Munk]

Ant wrote:

On 8/1/2017 7:48 AM, Ray_Net wrote:

Bill Spikowski wrote on 01-08-17 15:39:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I suppose the question is quite clear.

If I compose a normal email message, then it is automatically 
saved in

the Drafts folder, and I can save it there without sending it.

Is there something similar for news messages?


Sure, why not? File | Save As | Draft. It'll show up in the Drafts
folder for whatever account you use to post to the given newsgroup.



I don't have a "Draft" folders in any of my newsgroup accounts. When I
save a news message without sending it, it goes into 'local folders';
I can open it from there and post it easily


I think that for news ... the draft folder is under "Local Folders"


Yeah, by default unless the user changed it to somewhere else in "Mail 
& Newsgroups Account Settings".


Yes, that is true. However the message will not be saved is sending of 
the message fails. Even worse, if the message was saved as a draft prior 
to trying to send it, the saved message will also be lost.


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

Re: Is it possible to save draft news messages?

[Dirk Munk]

Bill Spikowski wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I suppose the question is quite clear.

If I compose a normal email message, then it is automatically saved in
the Drafts folder, and I can save it there without sending it.

Is there something similar for news messages?


Sure, why not? File | Save As | Draft. It'll show up in the Drafts 
folder for whatever account you use to post to the given newsgroup.



I don't have a "Draft" folders in any of my newsgroup accounts. When I 
save a news message without sending it, it goes into 'local folders'; 
I can open it from there and post it easily


True, it works for me as well. However this morning I tried to post a 
message, and the newsserver of my provider refused it (username 
problems, they have some technical issues at the moment). SeaMonkey then 
told me it could not save the message, why was that?

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

Is it possible to save draft news messages?

[Dirk Munk]

I suppose the question is quite clear.

If I compose a normal email message, then it is automatically saved in 
the Drafts folder, and I can save it there without sending it.


Is there something similar for news messages?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wrong date & time format in mail & news messages

[Dirk Munk]

EE wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Richmond wrote:

Ray_Net <tbrraymond.schmit...@tbrscarlet.be> writes:


Only for US to GB ... the regional setting is respected.


I don't know whether you are still talking about Seamonkey, but I have
seen the regional setting ignored for me, here, in the UK. I was 
using a

later version though than I am now. I am now on 2.49.1.


2.49.1 is not affected. Any higher version is. Same for Thunderbird 52.

FRG


It seems this bug is going to be resolved by getting the regional
settings that are actually in use by the OS.


What if you want a different form of the language?  That does not 
sound like a solution at all.




Can you explain what you mean please, it's not clear to me.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wrong date & time format in mail & news messages

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Richmond wrote:

Ray_Net  writes:


Only for US to GB ... the regional setting is respected.


I don't know whether you are still talking about Seamonkey, but I have
seen the regional setting ignored for me, here, in the UK. I was using a
later version though than I am now. I am now on 2.49.1.


2.49.1 is not affected. Any higher version is. Same for Thunderbird 52.

FRG


It seems this bug is going to be resolved by getting the regional 
settings that are actually in use by the OS.

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

Re: Is it possible to make SM delete the local profiles folder at startup?

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> I suppose it can't be too difficult to do this.
Probably not but don't forget that SeaMonkey is more or less a 
frontend. So this would need to be done very early during startup when 
the profile is selected but not loaded. I don't think it can be done 
safely in SeaMonkey code so this needs to be implemented in core code 
owned by Mozilla. Also only for Windows. If you want it raise a bug 
against core. If it gets implemented we would just need a ui for it.

FRG


On the Bugzilla homepage for Firefox, you can make suggestions for 
improvements of Firefox etc. Since this is not really a bug I suppose, 
I've made my request there.





Dirk Munk wrote:
A while back someone was experiencing some problems with SM. He was 
given the advice to delete the *local* (*not* the roaming!) profiles 
directory.


I've done that too on many occasions, and this indeed solves many 
problems. So much so, that I wish it would be a standard feature of 
SM to delete the local profiles folder at startup, before creating a 
new one. I don't mind if if there would be a switch to enable or 
disable this feature.


I suppose it can't be too difficult to do this.




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

Is it possible to make SM delete the local profiles folder at startup?

[Dirk Munk]

A while back someone was experiencing some problems with SM. He was 
given the advice to delete the *local* (*not* the roaming!) profiles 
directory.


I've done that too on many occasions, and this indeed solves many 
problems. So much so, that I wish it would be a standard feature of SM 
to delete the local profiles folder at startup, before creating a new 
one. I don't mind if if there would be a switch to enable or disable 
this feature.


I suppose it can't be too difficult to do this.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wrong date & time format in mail & news messages

[Dirk Munk]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

Its not a bug. its a mozilla feature:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=29=3030185
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1344594

Basically the OS settings are no longer honored by mozilla 
applications. Jorg fixed some of it but there are limits which can be 
done in the frontend code right now.


FRG


The language settings and the regional settings are two very distinct 
settings. Quite a number of computer users (like myself) prefer to use 
an English version of the operating system for a very simple reason, and 
that is that professional operating systems are always using English, 
and hence these users are accustomed to the English terminology.


Unfortunately many programmers don't seem to understand the difference 
between language settings and regional settings, so every now and then I 
get an installation procedure that wants to install a Dutch version of 
an application because I'm using Dutch regional settings on my English 
Windows.


It seems some Mozilla developers don't understand the difference either, 
because saying "install a Dutch version of Seamonkey if you want Dutch 
regional settings" isn't quite what I was looking for.


If I understand the whole discussion correctly, the the whole problem 
seems to be that C++ doesn't have a module that can call the regional 
settings of an OS. First of all, to me that seems to be a rather silly 
shortcoming of the C++ libraries, and secondly, why doesn't someone 
write such modules for each OS that supports regional settings? I assume 
it is well documented how to fetch the active regional settings in each OS?


So please Mozilla developers, get your act together and solve this problem.





Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


I don't think it's a SM setting.


The Date & Time stamps in Windows explorer are fine, this is a SM
problem.


OK, so you've changed your mind. I'll wait for the experts to respond.





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

Re: SeaMonkey Speed Problems

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Dirk Munk wrote:


David E. Ross wrote:


You are quite correct.  See bug #864047 at
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864047>.


At the cited URL, David E. Ross writes:


While SeaMonkey deletes the general cache on termination (per my
Private Data preference), the special caches are not deleted. Thus, I
manually delete the special caches before doing a backup.


Care to explain how you do that?


And since we don't know which cache is causing the speed problems,
disabling the cache as described may not fix the problem.

I have quite a strict view on caches, page files etc. When you
*start* an application that uses a cache, that cache should be
initialized. Data in a cache belongs to a running session, there
shouldn't be old junk from previous sessions in the cache.


Better would be to clear any caches on shutdown, so they don't survive 
on disk until the next program launch. All well and good to initialize 
on startup, but not as good.


An application may crash, and in that case the caches still contain 
data, maybe even data that caused the crash. In your proposal you rely 
on the assumption that caches are clear at start up. When I was still a 
programmer, I learned never to assume anything. Check and double check, 
or to make sure no junk is left in caches, records, fields and so on, 
always initialize.



When I was still using the glorious Windows 98, I used a setting
that would clear the page file when I closed down Windows. It made
Windows 98 quite a lot more stable!

So I would suggest that SM also initializes the local caches at
startup!


I suppose you intend the subjunctive sense here ("I propose that SM 
should be made to initialize") and not the indicative sense as written 
("I hypothesize that SM actually does now initialize"). If so, I agree.



That is what I mean.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey Speed Problems

[Dirk Munk]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 6/24/2017 3:11 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

rickman wrote:


Ed Mullen wrote on 6/21/2017 8:59 PM:

If you have a broadband connection there is little benefit to using a
browser cache.  Disable it.

First question, how?   Second question, does the browser impact the
other components in SeaMonkey when the browser isn't running?

Edit | Preferences | Advanced | Cache

Uncheck "Let SeaMonkey manage..." and set the value to zero.

Logically, I can't imagine how something that isn't running could
affect anything else, but I'll leave that one to the experts.


I don't know which cache is disabled by this setting. When you delete
the local profiles directory, more then one cache is deleted!


You are quite correct.  See bug #864047 at
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=864047>.

And since we don't know which cache is causing the speed problems, 
disabling the cache as described may not fix the problem.


I have quite a strict view on caches, page files etc. When you *start* 
an application that uses a cache, that cache should be initialized. Data 
in a cache belongs to a running session, there shouldn't be old junk 
from previous sessions in the cache.


When I was still using the glorious Windows 98, I used a setting that 
would clear the page file when I closed down Windows. It made Windows 98 
quite a lot more stable!


So I would suggest that SM also initializes the local caches at startup!


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

Re: SeaMonkey Speed Problems

[Dirk Munk]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

rickman wrote:


Ed Mullen wrote on 6/21/2017 8:59 PM:


If you have a broadband connection there is little benefit to using a
browser cache.  Disable it.


First question, how?   Second question, does the browser impact the
other components in SeaMonkey when the browser isn't running?


Edit | Preferences | Advanced | Cache

Uncheck "Let SeaMonkey manage..." and set the value to zero.

Logically, I can't imagine how something that isn't running could 
affect anything else, but I'll leave that one to the experts.


I don't know which cache is disabled by this setting. When you delete 
the local profiles directory, more then one cache is deleted!

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