In <news:[email protected]>, Rufus <[email protected]> wrote:
> »Q« wrote: > > In<news:[email protected]>, > > Phillip Jones<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> But Mozilla hears something about javascript could be dangerous, > >> and banned ten minutes later. Go figure. > > > > What you've posted is very misleading. They didn't "hear something > > about javascript could be dangerous", they know what javascript can > > and can't do. And they spent (wasted, IMO) a *lot* more than ten > > minutes working on the problem before giving up on it. > > > > Mozilla Messaging inherited a lot of stuff from previous > > Mozilla Suite and Thunderbird developers, including a security model > > which hadn't been maintained for years and was no longer usable. > > > > The options were to spend a lot of time and effort to design and > > implement a new security model or to take out javascript. They > > started down the first road only to realize it was a lot more time > > and effort than anticipated. > > One of the best things about SM though, was that it allowed the user > to make their own decision(s) in most cases when it came to > security. That was one of the major features I use to tout to other > people about it, and really helpful if one is in a situation where > there are security protocols already in place outside of SM itself. > > Sad to see that the user no longer gets to make their own > decision... The user was *never* allowed to make the kind of decision I was talking about -- there's never been the option to run javascript in an unrestricted context or any option anywhere near as awful as that one would be. -- »Q« /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / against html e-mail X <http://asciiribbon.org/> / \ _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
