On 11/22/2009 1:35 PM, Bush wrote:
But seriously... Your post were the only post that Were Blank in the
message area . post from others were Fine .
All the posts look fine here. SeaMonkey 1.1.X on Windows/XP SP3.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
On 11/21/2009 04:59 PM, Bush wrote:
...
Had to go back port 110 None SSL
Talking to the Gateway at http://192.168.1.254/ I see nothing wrong
with the Built-in Firewall
All settings are correct .
This might be of interest suggests that the problem may have been
(what else?) the ATT
Well today SSL works on all my computers . Very Very Strange... Tech
suport says Mozilla products cannot use SSL on att yahoo servers ,,, I
do a few Newsgroup Postings, And All of a Sudden SSL works with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else
support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey
Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page .. No info what so ever
with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page
works with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were
works with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were
Bush wrote:
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Well it works for me after all those earlier problems.
--
Lee (in Florida)US Army Retired
Georgie Boy Cruise Master
Logitech Vid Skype lee.g.bray
Lee wrote:
Bush wrote:
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Well it works for me after all those earlier problems.
My question is WHY did ATT Tech Support LIE to Me .
___
Bush wrote:
Lee wrote:
Bush wrote:
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Well it works for me after all those earlier problems.
My question is WHY did ATT Tech Support LIE to Me .
Forgot to Add .. Tech Support Said it Was a
On 11/22/2009 01:45 PM, Bush wrote:
Lee wrote:
Bush wrote:
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Well it works for me after all those earlier problems.
My question is WHY did ATT Tech Support LIE to Me .
You're joking... right?
On 11/22/2009 01:35 PM, Bush wrote:
NoOp wrote:
...
You might want to hang out here for awhile:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/uverse
But seriously... Your post were the only post that Were Blank in the
message area . post from others were Fine .
Wouldn't be the first time that I shot
Bush wrote:
My question is WHY did ATT Tech Support LIE to Me .
Probably like mine who did not know what in the heck
was going on much less of any help.
--
Lee (in Florida)US Army Retired
Georgie Boy Cruise Master
Logitech Vid Skype lee.g.bray
Lee wrote:
Bush wrote:
My question is WHY did ATT Tech Support LIE to Me .
Probably like mine who did not know what in the heck
was going on much less of any help.
Took me to Web mail... and it Worked so they Said it was not their
problem since Webmail worked ..
pop.att.yahoo.com ...
Bush wrote:
Well today SSL works on all my computers . Very Very Strange... Tech
suport says Mozilla products cannot use SSL on att yahoo servers ,,, I
do a few Newsgroup Postings, And All of a Sudden SSL works with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has
with
Seamonkey . Very Very Strange unless Tach support Read Newsgroups
Has everyone else on Att Who reported that ssl port 995 doesnot work on
att Suddenly get SSL back?.
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page
Hartmut Figge wrote:
NoOp:
On 11/22/2009 12:19 PM, Bush wrote:
NoOp wrote:
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page .. No info what so ever .
That may sometimes happen when you try to load a msg the news
NoOp wrote:
This post was Blank
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
NoOp wrote:
On 11/22/2009 04:14 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
NoOp:
On 11/22/2009 12:19 PM, Bush wrote:
NoOp wrote:
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl - UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page .. No info what so ever .
That may sometimes happen
Bush wrote:
NoOp wrote:
On 11/22/2009 04:14 PM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
NoOp:
On 11/22/2009 12:19 PM, Bush wrote:
NoOp wrote:
Perhaps you missed my post this morning on Att/Seamonkey/ssl -
UPDATE?
most of your post this morning Were a Blank Page .. No info what so
ever .
That may
/Seamonkey/ssl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: sludnzwbspsoqptwnz2dnuvz_sji4...@mozilla.org
Lines: 8
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.204.66.91
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace:
sv3
/Seamonkey/ssl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:sludnzwbspsoqptwnz2dnuvz_sji4...@mozilla.org
Lines: 8
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.204.66.91
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace:
sv3
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one without body.
Does this help?
Hartmut
On 11/22/2009 05:49 PM, Bush wrote:
Bush wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one
On 11/22/2009 05:47 PM, Bush wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one without body.
NoOp:
On 11/22/2009 05:49 PM, Bush wrote:
Bush wrote:
I already Cleared my Cache.
But only some NoOp post from him are Blank.. No one else's post are
Blank.. in this Group or in other groups.
I see we Both are on ATT
And that matters how?
I am writing this in case he cannot read your
NoOp:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/84ed3b9207cb82ec/77ba408f1014409d?hl=enlnk=gstq=Att%2FSeamonkey%2Fssl++-+UPDATE#77ba408f1014409d
Using ' instead of helps.
Bush wrote:
Sorry But I am not sending the Blank post from NoOp
only some post from you are Blank..
all other post from others
in this newsgroup has Text in the message box .
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
I
Bush wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one without body.
Does this help?
Hartmut
I
Leonidas Jones wrote:
Bush wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one without body.
Does
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Bush wrote:
Sorry But I am not sending the Blank post from NoOp
only some post from you are Blank..
all other post from others
in this newsgroup has Text in the message box .
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is
Leonidas Jones wrote:
Bush wrote:
Hartmut Figge wrote:
Bush:
Is anyone else seeing Blank post from NoOp ? hope we get a few answers
to see who is Cracking up.. u or Me ?
Try Preferences-Advanced-Cache-Clear Cache, then select another
posting and then go back to the one without body.
Does
Bush:
I just unsubscribed to this Group, Then re subscribed and Now I can see
his all the post From him. No Blank posts .
Hm. Then the .msf wasn't guilty. Must have been the newsrc for the NG.
Hartmut
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I have an ATT WorldNet account (same company, different product)
configured on port 995 as it has been for years, and it is unaffected. I
can send and receive mail normally, no complaints.
SM 1.1.16.
Hi Paul
Well I have to SM 2.0 and previously reported on problems
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but they
Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use port
110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me .
This is True
Lee wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I have an ATT WorldNet account (same company, different product)
configured on port 995 as it has been for years, and it is unaffected. I
can send and receive mail normally, no complaints.
SM 1.1.16.
Hi Paul
Well I have to SM 2.0 and previously reported
Lee wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I have an ATT WorldNet account (same company, different product)
configured on port 995 as it has been for years, and it is unaffected. I
can send and receive mail normally, no complaints.
SM 1.1.16.
Hi Paul
Well I have to SM 2.0 and previously reported
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but they
Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use port
110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me .
This is
Paul wrote:
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but
they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must
use port 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me .
Paul wrote:
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but
they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must
use port 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me .
Paul wrote:
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but
they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must
use port 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any sense to me
Bush wrote:
Lee wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I have an ATT WorldNet account (same company, different product)
configured on port 995 as it has been for years, and it is unaffected. I
can send and receive mail normally, no complaints.
SM 1.1.16.
Hi Paul
Well I have to SM 2.0 and
norm wrote:
Bush wrote:
Lee wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
I have an ATT WorldNet account (same company, different product)
configured on port 995 as it has been for years, and it is
unaffected. I
can send and receive mail normally, no complaints.
SM 1.1.16.
Hi Paul
Well I have to SM
Paul wrote:
Paul wrote:
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues ,
They No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl)
but they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users
must use port 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but
they Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must
use port 110 ( No security). Which doesnot make any
On 11/20/2009 06:25 PM, Bush wrote:
Att uverse Informed me tonight that Due to Compatibility issues , They
No longer Support Seamonkey Mail configured to port 995 ( ssl) but they
Say SSL port 995 will work with outlook . Seamonkey users must use port
110 ( No security). Which doesnot make
47 matches
Mail list logo
