WaltS wrote:
On 11/26/2013 07:51 AM, Dustbin wrote:
A few days ago I received a pop-up advice that SM 2.22.1 was available.
I dutifully updated as usual. Then I found that FF returns unfound for
all URLs. I reverted to SM v. 2.22 and all is well - once more.
Then I got the same with updates
David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/26/2013 4:51 AM, Dustbin wrote:
A few days ago I received a pop-up advice that SM 2.22.1 was available. I
dutifully updated as usual. Then I found that FF returns unfound for all URLs. I
reverted to SM v. 2.22 and all is well - once more.
Then I got the same
BIll Spikowski wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
A few days ago I received a pop-up advice that SM 2.22.1 was available. I
dutifully updated as usual. Then I found that FF returns unfound for all URLs. I
reverted to SM v. 2.22 and all is well - once more.
Then I got the same with updates to FF and TB. I
A few days ago I received a pop-up advice that SM 2.22.1 was available. I
dutifully updated as usual. Then I found that FF returns unfound for all URLs. I
reverted to SM v. 2.22 and all is well - once more.
Then I got the same with updates to FF and TB. I assume there is a connection.
Some
Philipp van Hüllen wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
MCBastos wrote:
Also, many (many, many many...) websites have some sort of facebook
thingie on their pages. It might be just the like button, it might be
something more complex -- I know a few, for instance, that insert their
Facebook
Lee wrote:
On 1/29/12, Dustbindustbin_addr...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Philipp van Hüllen wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty schrieb:
MCBastos wrote:
Also, many (many, many many...) websites have some sort of facebook
thingie on their pages. It might be just the like button, it might be
WLS wrote:
On 12/22/2011 09:02 PM, Dustbin aliandika:
It should not be necessary to spoof firefox.
If people wrote their code to work to TCP/IP standard protocols SM
would work.
Those who write code should be made to conform to standards.
Unfortunately I don't know how. governments obviously
Edmund wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
It should not be necessary to spoof firefox.
If people wrote their code to work to TCP/IP standard protocols SM would
work.
Do you mean putting FireFox in the UA string? If so, that has (AFAIU)
nothing to do with the TCP/IP standard protocols, but the way
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Dustbin schrieb:
It should not be necessary to spoof firefox.
You're right that it should not, but in many cases it unfortunately is.
You can turn it off in preferences, though - but be prepared to
encounter broken websites then.
I have left it on - and some sites
SM 2.6 preserves the existing bookmarks including toolbar.
D.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
It should not be necessary to spoof firefox.
If people wrote their code to work to TCP/IP standard protocols SM would
work.
Those who write code should be made to conform to standards.
Unfortunately I don't know how. governments obviously have no regard for
right and wrong. They will
Stan wrote:
Did we ever come up with a sure way of tricking sites into thinking we
are using Firefox?
I need to switch banks and it appears they only accept the browsers on
their list.
It is an outrage that these scumbags should be telling us what browser
to use. If they wrote their code
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
When a link is opened in new tab, how can I get the system to default
the new tab on top rather than in the background? I have not been able
to find an option in preferences.
Preferences/Tabbed Browsing: [x] Switch to new tabs opened from links.
Thank you
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:11:22 +, Dustbin wrote:
Jens Hatlak wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
When a link is opened in new tab, how can I get the system to default
the new tab on top rather than in the background? I have not been able
to find an option in preferences.
Preferences
When a link is opened in new tab, how can I get the system to default
the new tab on top rather than in the background? I have not been able
to find an option in preferences.
When opening a newsgroup it always offers the option to compact the ng.
I do not want this and have un-ticked the
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
The SeaMonkey project is proud to present SeaMonkey 2.5: The new major
release of the all-in-one Internet suite is available for download now!
Building on the same Mozilla platform as the newest Firefox release, it
delivers the latest developments in web technologies
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
The SeaMonkey project is proud to present SeaMonkey 2.5: The new major
release of the all-in-one Internet suite is available for download now!
Building on the same Mozilla platform as the newest Firefox release, it
delivers
Ray_Net wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
I have been wondering what protocol is used to return the info in a
web form. E.g. the mailto: protocol. I take it this is not SMTP.
But is it HTTP; is it FTP; is it...?
An interesting collection
Dustbin wrote:
I have been wondering what protocol is used to return the info in a web
form. E.g. the mailto: protocol. I take it this is not SMTP. But is it
HTTP; is it FTP; is it...?
TIA
D.
An interesting collection of answers though clearly many thought I
wanted to write the web page or I
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
I have been wondering what protocol is used to return the info in a
web form. E.g. the mailto: protocol. I take it this is not SMTP.
But is it HTTP; is it FTP; is it...?
An interesting collection of answers though clearly many
I have been wondering what protocol is used to return the info in a web
form. E.g. the mailto: protocol. I take it this is not SMTP. But is it
HTTP; is it FTP; is it...?
TIA
D.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Dustbin wrote:
FireFox is now presuming to bypass my firewall without asking
permission to access the internet. WHat is worse, is that it does not
appear in the list of programmes so that I can set whether it has
permission or not.
In order to protect
WLS wrote:
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 11-10-12 3:05 AM, Dustbin wrote:
FireFox is now presuming to bypass my firewall without asking permission
to access the internet. WHat is worse, is that it does not appear in the
list of programmes so that I can set whether it has permission or not.
In order
wr wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:05 am, Dustbindustbin_addr...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
FireFox is now presuming to bypass my firewall without asking permission
to access the internet. WHat is worse, is that it does not appear in the
list of programmes so that I can set whether it has permission or not.
WLS wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 10/12/2011 04:29 PM, WLS wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 10/12/2011 04:05 PM, WLS wrote:
Chris Ilias wrote:
On 11-10-12 3:05 AM, Dustbin wrote:
FireFox is now presuming to bypass my firewall without asking
permission
to access the internet. WHat is worse, is that it does
FireFox is now presuming to bypass my firewall without asking permission
to access the internet. WHat is worse, is that it does not appear in the
list of programmes so that I can set whether it has permission or not.
In order to protect myself it may be necessary to stop using FireFox
26 matches
Mail list logo
