On 8/11/2015 4:05 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 7/11/2015 4:28 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for
On 7/11/2015 4:28 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will
go back on line.
Is there any built in wa
Daniel wrote:
On 7/11/2015 4:28 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will
go back on line.
Is there
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
add-on/Theme that you like??
I try newer versions every now and then and I always end up deleting
them. It seems every SM since 2.26.1 is uglier and less useful than
the preceding one. I like the default theme, functional, no eye
candy
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
add-on/Theme that you like??
I try newer versions every now and then and I always end up deleting
them. It seems every SM since 2.26.1 is uglier and less useful than
the preceding one. I like the default theme, functional, no eye
candy.
What's different? I haven't
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will go back on
line.
Is there any built in way, like a string in "about", to make it
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote on 06/11/2015 16:00:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will go back on
line.
Is there any built in way, like a string in "abo
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will go back on
line.
Is there any built in way, like a string in
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:28:14 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:48:05 -0600, "Paul in Houston, TX"
<Paul@Houston.Texas> wrote:
SM 2.26.1 stays open t
SM 2.26.1 stays open too long; sometimes for 5 minutes hoping I will go back on
line.
Is there any built in way, like a string in "about", to make it close when I
click close?
Currently I have to kill process.
___
support-seamonkey ma
website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end
up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links contained within photos and the headlines
immediately beneath the photos, with the headline links
On 16/04/15 03:39, cmcadams wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 4/14/2015 11:06 PM, cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news
website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most
post this UA string:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey
(Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.26.1
Doesn't look like whether the user advertises Firefox compatibility or
not has a bearing on the problem.
Like you I had no trouble with those links.
I'm not going to install SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to do any testing.
--
Kubuntu 14.10
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I don't know. I've got Advertise Firefox compatibility checked (in
Preferences - Advanced - HTTP Networking).
Confirmed. Your email header says:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0
SeaMonkey/2.26.1
-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end
up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links contained within photos and the headlines
immediately beneath the photos, with the headline links going
astray
Daniel wrote:
On 16/04/15 03:39, cmcadams wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 4/14/2015 11:06 PM, cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news
website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under
cmcadams wrote:
I don't know. I've got Advertise Firefox compatibility checked (in
Preferences - Advanced - HTTP Networking).
Confirmed. Your email header says:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
--
War doesn't determine who's
SeaMonkey/2.26.1
DSCN0153.JPG
--
Gertjan
DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD, UNTIE!
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/36.0 SeaMonkey/2.33.1
File: libflashplayer.so
Path: /home/gerardjan/Downloads/seamonkey/plugins/libflashplayer.so
Version: 11.2.202.442
David E. Ross wrote:
At http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada, all Most Popular
from US and Canada links -- those listed with days of the week --
send me to the story US to exhume remains of Pearl Harbor dead for
identification. Even the header Most Popular from US and Canada
itself is a
On 4/14/2015 11:06 PM, cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news
website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong
David E. Ross wrote:
On 4/14/2015 11:06 PM, cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up
and not here.
No, the problem is clearly with some installations of SeaMonkey.
I still recommend clearing your cache and reloading the site.
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
I am looking at the Web page at
http
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links contained
David E. Ross wrote:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
I am looking at the Web page at
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/us_and_canada. The lead article is
Ex-NFL player guilty of murder.
Same here.
Lower on that page
David E. Ross wrote:
On 4/15/2015 12:15 PM, cmcadams wrote:
Cleft stick, gaining one thing to lose another. Specifically, I'm
obligated to compose frequent HTML emails, and SM's editor in
versions after 2.26.1 are trashed, just a hair above completely
unusable.
The operation of Password
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links contained
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same
On 4/15/2015 12:15 PM, cmcadams wrote:
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong
On 4/15/2015 12:59 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote [in part]:
I previously wrote [also in part]:
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
You may not realize it, but the contents of the status bar don't change
if you mouse
David E. Ross wrote on 4/15/2015 11:51 AM:
On 4/14/2015 11:06 PM, cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head
EE wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story
cmcadams wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news
website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different for the links contained
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website are
helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at the wrong
destination. Links that should be to the same story are different for the links
contained within photos
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
cmcadams wrote:
I'm finding that links at the redesigned http://www.bbc.com/news website
are helter-skelter in SM 2.26.1.
The links under the Most Popular head on individual pages end up at
the wrong destination. Links that should be to the same story are
different
On 2015-03-31 00:14, EE wrote:
Lemon Juice wrote:
On 2015-03-29 21:20, EE wrote:
Can you not send your patched version to Mozdev? That is where version
1.3.21 is.
http://downloads.mozdev.org/flashblock/
Philip (the author) already has already made a patched version for
Firefox so I don't
On 2015-03-31 00:14, EE wrote:
Lemon Juice wrote:
On 2015-03-29 21:20, EE wrote:
Can you not send your patched version to Mozdev? That is where version
1.3.21 is.
http://downloads.mozdev.org/flashblock/
Philip (the author) already has already made a patched version for
Firefox so I don't
before viewing the Flash.
--
David E. Ross
I am sticking with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 until saved passwords can
be used when autocomplete=off. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=433238.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey
Lemon Juice wrote:
On 2015-03-29 21:20, EE wrote:
Can you not send your patched version to Mozdev? That is where version
1.3.21 is.
http://downloads.mozdev.org/flashblock/
Philip (the author) already has already made a patched version for
Firefox so I don't think it makes sense for me to
David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/29/2015 10:52 PM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/29/2015 4:40 PM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is another flash block needed when there is already one built into SM?
The Flashblock extension will show you where the Flash presentation
would have
presentation on
a Web page that has several. I am also not sure that, if you enable
Flash this way, whether you have to reload the affected Web page.
--
David E. Ross
I am sticking with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 until saved passwords can
be used when autocomplete=off. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi
David E. Ross wrote:
On 3/29/2015 4:40 PM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is another flash block needed when there is already one built into SM?
The Flashblock extension will show you where the Flash presentation
would have appeared if it were not blocked. This is indicated by an
icon that is
Lemon Juice wrote:
On 2015-03-30 01:40, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is another flash block needed when there is already one built into SM?
It's not needed if the built-in one does what you need. Flash block
extensions may have other features like site white-listing or blocking
html5 video.
://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13230070/flashblock1.3.21mod2.xpi
Yeah, it's me who did the mod because Flashblock blocked too much in SM
2.31 and later:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40t=2896337 - however,
for SM 2.26.1 the regular flashblock 1.3.21 or 1.3.20 will work. Here is
the download link
properly.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13230070/flashblock1.3.21mod2.xpi
Yeah, it's me who did the mod because Flashblock blocked too much in SM
2.31 and later:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40t=2896337 - however,
for SM 2.26.1 the regular flashblock 1.3.21 or 1.3.20
Is another flash block needed when there is already one built into SM?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
On 2015-03-30 01:40, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is another flash block needed when there is already one built into SM?
It's not needed if the built-in one does what you need. Flash block
extensions may have other features like site white-listing or blocking
html5 video.
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is there a SM flash block that allows selective turn on similar to FF
flashblock plugin? Which do you recommend?
Thanks everyone.
I have 6 or 10 different ones to try now.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
/13230070/flashblock1.3.21mod2.xpi
Yeah, it's me who did the mod because Flashblock blocked too much in SM
2.31 and later:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=40t=2896337 - however,
for SM 2.26.1 the regular flashblock 1.3.21 or 1.3.20 will work. Here is
the download link for 1.3.21: http
On 03/28/2015 03:08 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
Tools Add-ons Manager Plugins. There should be drop downs for each
pligun
WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/28/2015 03:08 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
Tools Add-ons Manager Plugins. There should be drop downs for each
On 03/28/2015 08:00 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/28/2015 03:08 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
Tools Add-ons Manager Plugins
WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/28/2015 03:08 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
Tools Add-ons Manager Plugins. There should be drop downs for each
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is there a SM flash block that allows selective turn on similar to FF
flashblock plugin? Which do you recommend?
There is a version which had to be patched 3 times in order to work
properly.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13230070/flashblock1.3.21mod2.xpi
2.26.1.
Somehow, I installed a version 1.3.21. I am not sure how I got it since
there is no entry for it in the Download Manager list. If you want a
copy of the .xpi file of this version, let me know in this thread. I
will put it on a Web site from which you can download it.
Thanks David
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Just installed FF 27.0 and SM 2.26.1.
FF has native flash control, no extensions needed.
SM does not seem to have that or I can't find it.
Can anyone verify?
Why don't install SM2.33.1 ?
--
Gertjan
DYSLEXICS OF THE WORLD, UNTIE!
File: libflashplayer.so
Path
Is there a SM flash block that allows selective turn on similar to FF
flashblock plugin? Which do you recommend?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
On 3/27/2015 7:06 PM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Is there a SM flash block that allows selective turn on similar to FF
flashblock plugin? Which do you recommend?
Flashblock 1.3.20 from
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/installation2.html#current should work
with SeaMonkey 2.26.1.
Somehow, I
Mark Bourne wrote:
I've just updated SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to 2.33 on Windows Vista. Some notes
on a few issues and solutions I came across, in case they help anyone
else...
First off, back up your profile before updating - usually a good idea
anyway, just in case the new version messes something up
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote on 3/16/2015 3:21 PM:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
I've just updated SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to 2.33 on Windows Vista. Some notes
on a few issues and solutions I came across, in case they help anyone
else...
First
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
I've just updated SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to 2.33 on Windows Vista. Some notes
on a few issues and solutions I came across, in case they help anyone
else...
First off, back up your profile before updating - usually a good idea
I've just updated SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to 2.33 on Windows Vista. Some notes
on a few issues and solutions I came across, in case they help anyone
else...
First off, back up your profile before updating - usually a good idea
anyway, just in case the new version messes something up in the profile
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
I've just updated SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to 2.33 on Windows Vista. Some notes
on a few issues and solutions I came across, in case they help anyone
else...
First off, back up your profile before updating - usually a good idea
anyway, just in case the new
The interface in SeaMonkey is not changing very much. It is not being
mutilated the way Firefox has been.
I wonder if SeaMonkey will ever get a major GUI makeover. :P
I hope not. I like it the way it is.
Yeah, me too since I have been this design since Netscape's days during
the mid
Ant wrote:
On 3/4/2015 9:31 AM, EE wrote:
The interface in SeaMonkey is not changing very much. It is not being
mutilated the way Firefox has been.
I wonder if SeaMonkey will ever get a major GUI makeover. :P
I hope not. I like it the way it is.
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:00 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
On 3/4/2015 9:31 AM, EE wrote:
The interface in SeaMonkey is not changing very much. It is not being
mutilated the way Firefox has been.
I wonder if SeaMonkey will ever get a major GUI makeover. :P
--
... Ooh, we haven't done that in a long time. I love picnics. I'll
bring my ant jar. --The
EE wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:00 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1
On 03/04/2015 07:46 PM, Ant wrote:
On 3/4/2015 9:31 AM, EE wrote:
The interface in SeaMonkey is not changing very much. It is not being
mutilated the way Firefox has been.
I wonder if SeaMonkey will ever get a major GUI makeover. :P
I wonder if it will have the features.
--
Kubuntu
On 03/03/2015 02:00 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine the FF equivalent
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine the FF equivalent of SM by adding the bits
WaltS48 wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:00 AM, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine
On 03/03/15 18:00, Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine the FF equivalent of SM
EE wrote:
A Williams wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
The last one before Australis? That has to be a bonus.
Firefox 29 was the beginning
Daniel wrote:
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine the FF equivalent of SM by adding the bits of the
SM version
On 03/03/15 04:38, Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
I normally determine the FF equivalent of SM by adding the bits of the
SM version and then adding one, e.g
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
When I am asked, What do you think of our audience? I answer, I know
two kinds of audiences only--one coughing
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
The last one before Australis? That has to be a bonus.
___
support-seamonkey
Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
Thanks Ed.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
A Williams wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote on 3/2/2015 12:29 PM:
FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Hi, can someone tell me the FF equivalent to SM 2.26.1 ?
Thanks.
29
The last one before Australis? That has to be a bonus.
Firefox 29 was the beginning of Australis
On 02/01/2015 08:31 PM, Zeb Carter wrote:
I haven't upgraded yet due to concerns regarding some problems with
2.29/2.30.
The primary reason why I haven't upgraded was the breakage of viewing
images in binary newsgroups in the later versions.
I haven't seen any indication that this has
I haven't upgraded yet due to concerns regarding some problems with
2.29/2.30.
The primary reason why I haven't upgraded was the breakage of viewing
images in binary newsgroups in the later versions.
I haven't seen any indication that this has been fixed n 2.32. Can
anyone confirm this is
. The old version is
*not* going to get fixed.
I am sticking with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 until saved passwords can
be used when autocomplete=off. See
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1064639.
Cool. In your bug report you indicate that the blocking issue (saved
password used when
2.26.1
My pc is under Windows7 Pro SP1
with SM signature:
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
What could i do ?
Hello,
Basically the xpi is a zip file. you can rename it to xxx.zip, open
it
with your prefered zip manager and extract
Ray_Net wrote:
From: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/belgium-eid/
Unable to install the file eid_belgie-1.0.18-fx.xpi
it ends with the error:
Belgium eID could not be installed because it is not compatible with
SeaMonkey 2.26.1
My pc is under Windows7 Pro SP1
with SM
philippe wrote, On 12/11/2014 21:45:
Ray_Net wrote:
From: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/belgium-eid/
Unable to install the file eid_belgie-1.0.18-fx.xpi
it ends with the error:
Belgium eID could not be installed because it is not compatible with
SeaMonkey 2.26.1
My pc is under
From: https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/belgium-eid/
Unable to install the file eid_belgie-1.0.18-fx.xpi
it ends with the error:
Belgium eID could not be installed because it is not compatible with
SeaMonkey 2.26.1
My pc is under Windows7 Pro SP1
with SM signature:
User agent
bad words in the Subject.
How about doing everyone a favor/favour and putting SeaMonkey/2.26.1
in the subject line, or, at the very least in the body of your message?
That way folks won't go chasing their tails trying to reproduce in
2.29.x, and if in the subject line they can skip the post
. Stop underlining bad words in the Subject.
How about doing everyone a favor/favour and putting SeaMonkey/2.26.1
in the subject line, or, at the very least in the body of your message?
That way folks won't go chasing their tails trying to reproduce in
2.29.x, and if in the subject line they can skip
Sir,
I loved SeaMonkey 2.24, but from then on, it went down!! I tried
2.25, 2.26, and 2.26.1 and they all had problems. I went back to
SeaMonkey 2.24 and I also like Waterfox.
Phil
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey
Hallo Support,
leider ist mein Englisch nicht so perfekt, so dass ich diese Form der
Kontaktaufnahme wählen muss.
Ich versuche schon seit längerer Zeit den Hinweisen auf ein
Programmupdate zu folgen (z. Zeit 2.26.1), leider kann ich dies nicht
anwenden, da ich seamonkey dann nur im
I recently downloaded SeaMonkey 2.26.1 to my new work computer.
Frequently, the new and sometimes old messages take a long time to
download. Can you give advice on how to fix this problem?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey
into the address
bar and post that info here as well.
- Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]
HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF about:crashes (The latest)
Mozilla Crash Reports
Search
Product:
Select Version:
Report:
Advanced Search - Super Search
SeaMonkey 2.26.1 Crash Report [@ js::RemapWrapper
and post that info here as well.
- Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]
HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF about:crashes (The latest)
Mozilla Crash Reports
Search
Product:
Select Version:
Report:
Advanced Search - Super Search
SeaMonkey 2.26.1 Crash Report [@ js::RemapWrapper(JSContext*, JSObject
Search
SeaMonkey 2.26.1 Crash Report [@ js::RemapWrapper(JSContext*, JSObject*,
JSObject*) ]
Search Mozilla Support for Help
ID: 3e67e495-c12a-4cbc-848c-1e79d2140806
Signature: js::RemapWrapper(JSContext*, JSObject*, JSObject*)
Details
Metadata
Modules
Raw Dump
Extensions
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
