Le 20 février 2012, Rufus a écrit :
user_pref(security.password_lifetime, 90);
I have this set to 0. Try it maybe? (through about:config that's easy)
--
LL
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Desiree wrote:
With the demise of Scroogle, which has been my sole search engine for
many years, I am looking for a search engine that does not spy on me.
StartPage looks to be the only decent results one in this category. Why
can't I install it on SM? I am
WLS wrote:
On 02/20/2012 08:36 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
If I read the release notes for Seamonkey 2.7.2, I am told :
What's New in SeaMonkey 2.7.2
SeaMonkey 2.7.2 contains the following major changes relative
to SeaMonkey 2.6:
But I knew this already, from the release notes for
Seamonkey
NoOp wrote:
The release notes for SM 2.7.2[1] show that a bug[2] was fixed regarding
newsgroups:
major MailNews bug has been fixed: Under certain conditions, entire
newsgroups were marked as unread and authentication data (user name and
password) was lost (bug 695309).
However I've just
Larry S. wrote:
For reasons too long to go into here, I installed SM 2.7.1 over 2.72.
After a series of problems and actions, I wound up back on 2.7.2.
However, SM seemed like it couldn't find my profile, or at least parts
of it. I fixed my home page through preferences, and bookmarks, address
MCBastos myemail@example.invalid wrote in message
news:qzwdnq1cgphe-d_snz2dnuvz_gadn...@mozilla.org...
Interviewed by CNN on 20/02/2012 07:27, Desiree told the world:
With the demise of Scroogle, which has been my sole search engine for
many
years, I am looking for a search engine that does
Beauregard T. Shagnasty a.nony.mous@example.invalid wrote in message
news:bo-dnynbjq--on_snz2dnuvz_ridn...@mozilla.org...
Desiree wrote:
With the demise of Scroogle, which has been my sole search engine for
many years, I am looking for a search engine that does not spy on me.
StartPage
MCBastos myemail@example.invalid wrote in message
news:yfqdne86nkgo-n_snz2dnuvz_qudn...@mozilla.org...
Interviewed by CNN on 20/02/2012 07:27, Desiree told the world:
With the demise of Scroogle, which has been my sole search engine for
many
years, I am looking for a search engine that does
Daniel wrote:
Hey, Beauregard, when in SeaMonkey do you find Options-Browser?? I'm
on Linux and SM 2.7.2 and don't see it! Is that in StartPage??
For Linux users, it would be Edit Preferences Browser ... from the
menu. Windows users get Tools Options Browser ...
--
-bts
-This
On 21.02.2012 04:13, Daniel wrote:
--- Original Message ---
WLS wrote:
On 02/20/2012 08:36 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
If I read the release notes for Seamonkey 2.7.2, I am told :
What's New in SeaMonkey 2.7.2
SeaMonkey 2.7.2 contains the following major changes relative
to SeaMonkey 2.6:
Justin Wood, not Jason. :-(
--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
On 21.02.2012 07:46, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
--- Original Message ---
Jay Garcia wrote:
The reason is that people may update to 2.7.2 directly from 2.6.1, and
all our release notes/etc. apply to 2.7.2 just as they did to 2.7, so we
try to not duplicate the workload.
But how is a user,
Jay Garcia wrote:
Ask Jason Wood, it's his ballgame. But just keep in mind that 3rd digit
updates are usually security updates.
Justin ? And even if they are just security updates, they
can still introduce new, unexpected, unwanted behaviour,
and a user is surely entitled to be told the
Jay Garcia wrote:
Yes, Justin as I replied in my correction post.
My Justin ? was me, asking Justin, as you suggested.
If there are only security updates from incremental to incremental
versions then there S H O U L D be no unexpected and unwanted behaviors,
yes?
S H O U L D. My
Daniel wrote:
Larry S. wrote:
For reasons too long to go into here, I installed SM 2.7.1 over 2.72.
After a series of problems and actions, I wound up back on 2.7.2.
However, SM seemed like it couldn't find my profile, or at least parts
of it. I fixed my home page through preferences, and
On 2/20/12 10:02 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 7:35 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 1:28 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 11:59 AM, Rufus wrote:
Ok - I submitted a formal bug on this at the 2.6.1 release, but it's
just happened again
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
And even if they are just security updates, they
can still introduce new, unexpected, unwanted behaviour,
and a user is surely entitled to be told the nature of
the update and the potential implications ?
Just look at the Changes page. It's all there. Whether it's listed
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Just look at the Changes page. It's all there. Whether it's
listed on the front page or a page directly linked from there is
pointless nit-picking.
I am sorry, Jens, it is not pointless nit-picking at all.
It isn't even nit-picking, pointless or otherwise. The
release
The new flash update (this morning when I turned
on computer) seems to be locking up SM. Anyone
else having the same problem? Lately, I find
myself using IE more and more
--
Pat Connors, Sacramento, CA
http://www.connorsgenealogy.com
___
On 2/21/12 9:32 AM, Pat Connors wrote:
The new flash update (this morning when I turned
on computer) seems to be locking up SM. Anyone
else having the same problem? Lately, I find
myself using IE more and more
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 SeaMonkey/2.7.2
Lucas Levrel wrote:
Le 20 février 2012, Rufus a écrit :
user_pref(security.password_lifetime, 90);
I have this set to 0. Try it maybe? (through about:config that's easy)
I would have thought that would be a step in the wrong direction (I
might have doubled it to 180, for instance), but I
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 10:02 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 7:35 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 1:28 PM, Rufus wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/20/12 11:59 AM, Rufus wrote:
Ok - I submitted a formal bug on this at the 2.6.1 release, but it's
Pat Connors wrote:
The new flash update (this morning when I turned on computer) seems to
be locking up SM. Anyone else having the same problem? Lately, I find
myself using IE more and more
No problems here. Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216
I have the above, and I do not have this problem. I can tell you also
have SeaMonkey 2.7.2. What version of Flash was installed? You can
check best by going to [Help About Plugins] on the SeaMonkey menu bar.
I have:
Shockwave Flash
File: NPSWF32.dll
Version: 11.1.102.62
freelance writer
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
___
support-seamonkey mailing
Security Issue? why? the characters are put in a form of hexadecimal
representation preceded by a percentage symbol, is not mystery or it
doesn't do anything than that; is just represented on another way for
some reason, maybe hiding the URI/L or some new standard, but is not
security-related
On 2/21/12 4:20 PM, gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
Browsers do recognize
gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper translation.
Did you bother reading the RFC 3986 at
On 2/21/12 5:28 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 2/21/12 4:20 PM, gjikkl wrote:
I stand correct on the percentage-encoding not being Unicode.
Well IMO this shouldn't even be a problem, is kinda of common this
percentage-encoding and all browsers should recognize it and make the
proper
Interviewed by CNN on 21/02/2012 22:24, gjikkl told the world:
Security Issue? why? the characters are put in a form of hexadecimal
representation preceded by a percentage symbol, is not mystery or it
doesn't do anything than that; is just represented on another way for
some reason, maybe
Interviewed by CNN on 19/02/2012 17:07, Rufus told the world:
...as an aside, why does SM often change the ' and some other characters
contained in the website name information in a Bookmark to what appear
to be Unicode characters? Most annoying.
I don't remember noticing this behavior.
David E. Ross wrote:
I previously referred to RFC 3986. Please read it.
Note that is a special character in HTML. Since RFC 3986 specifies
its use as the separation character before a query in a URI, HTML
provides foramp; in place of in a URI. Browsers translateamp;
into when ever it is
On 2/21/12 10:10 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
I previously referred to RFC 3986. Please read it.
Note that is a special character in HTML. Since RFC 3986 specifies
its use as the separation character before a query in a URI, HTML
provides foramp; in place of in a
34 matches
Mail list logo
