I skipped over ver. 0.9.8 because of some of the reported issues, but have
installed ver. 0.9.9. Although I am generally enthusiastic about its
quality and speed, it seems (or perhaps it was 0.9.8) to have abandoned the
protocol of allowing cookies based on privacy levels, i.e., where the
I can't get any response out of the ftp server to download 0.9.9, either
directly to the ftp or through http. Does that mean it's busy, or is there
a problem?
Not sure if this is a bug, or a feature for which I can't find the off
switch. Perhaps someone can help...??
I'm running 0.9.4 on Win 98SE. Although I use The Bat! for my email
client, I installed the MailNews module of 0.9.4 to test a bug with RTF
attachments. The Bat! is still listed
l337hx0r wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[*lots* of text snipped]
So 'open discussion on road maps', 'procedures for patches' are the
main things to decide. Have fun now!
Thanks for making the time for a thoughtful response!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have a question about how Mozilla.org manages to combine open
source with controlled development of the primary products.
If the code is freely available, what keeps someone from developing
an alternative browser based on the same code? It's my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry if this is OT (I'm still trying to figure out what is
on-topic):
Why retain the mail and news components of Mozilla? To the degree
that the Internet is increasingly a part of our daily lives, the
triad of browser, mail, and newsreader are
Henri Sivonen wrote in news:henris-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How does one publish a page from the local drive to the website with
Mozilla?
With scp or ftp.
scp?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I must be missing something here With NS4.76, there's a
Publish button in Composer. I can't find anything similar in
M0.9.2's Composer. How does one publish a page from the local drive
to the website with Mozilla?
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I saw a reference here once to a NG which I *thought* was
n.p.m.security, but my newserver, which has lots of n.p.m.* groups,
does not list a security group. Perhaps someone here can answer the
question
What are the consensus views for and
