Matthew Toseland skrev:
> On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>> On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
> As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
> FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has
On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
> >> Colin Davis skrev:
> >>> As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
> >>> FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
> Firefox has
On Thursday 21 May 2009 18:54:38 Colin Davis wrote:
> As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
> connections from the browser to the node.
>
> Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
> and then inlines them.
>
> Even if Freenet
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
connections from the browser to the node.
Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
and then inlines them.
Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data
URIs may
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
>> Colin Davis skrev:
>>> As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
>>> FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
>
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
command
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
connections from the browser to the node.
Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
and then inlines them.
Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data
URIs may
On Thursday 21 May 2009 18:54:38 Colin Davis wrote:
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of
connections from the browser to the node.
Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris,
and then inlines them.
Even if Freenet doesn't
On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:41:00 Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> >> Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at
> >> least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be
> >> registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already
>
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
> Colin Davis skrev:
> > As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
> > FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
> >> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
command
> >> line options
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:41:00 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at
least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be
registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already
for the
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
command
line options to use one
Colin Davis skrev:
> As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
> FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
>> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
>> command
>> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window
Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at
>> least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be
>> registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already
>> for the individual browsers. We can also check the
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
> open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode
> enabled safe and reliable?
I
Colin Davis skrev:
> We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
> warning, IIRC.
> If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
> on, and they can turn it off.
I agree.
We could include a first-time dismissable infobox informing the user
Colin Davis skrev:
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
I agree.
We could include a first-time dismissable infobox informing the user
that
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode
enabled safe and reliable?
I haven't
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at
least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be
registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already
for the individual browsers. We can also check the version
Colin Davis skrev:
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with
command
line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
> >> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> >>> Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
> > should
> >>> use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
> >> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> >>> Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
> > should
> >>> use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in
On Friday 15 May 2009 19:33:16 Colin Davis wrote:
> We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
> warning, IIRC.
> If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
> on, and they can turn it off.
>
> > I'm assuming that once you have switched
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:24:53 Zero3 wrote:
> Colin Davis skrev:
> > The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
> > trick.
> > If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
> > http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
> > -CPD
Colin Davis skrev:
> The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
> trick.
> If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
> http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
> -CPD
It wouldn't be a bad idea to do such a check
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>> Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
> should
>>> use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then
> let
>>> them choose one, and then
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
> open, there are
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
> I'm assuming that once you have switched "privacy mode" off, websites can't
> probe links you've visited
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
should
> > use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then
let
> > them choose one, and then use it when they click on the
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
should
use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then
let
them choose one, and then use it when
Colin Davis skrev:
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
trick.
If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
-CPD
It wouldn't be a bad idea to do such a check automatically!
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:24:53 Zero3 wrote:
Colin Davis skrev:
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
trick.
If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
-CPD
It
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
I'm assuming that once you have switched privacy mode off, websites can't
probe links you've visited
On Friday 15 May 2009 19:33:16 Colin Davis wrote:
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE
warning, IIRC.
If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it
on, and they can turn it off.
I'm assuming that once you have switched privacy
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
should
use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
should
use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in
FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window.
Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command
line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already
open, there are
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should
> use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let
> them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse
> Freenet? (#3104)
Most major browsers
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should
use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let
them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse
Freenet? (#3104)
Most major browsers
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they
should
use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then
let
them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect
trick.
If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/
-CPD
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote:
Matthew
43 matches
Mail list logo
