Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Clicking block images from this server stops the ads coming up as broken images, but the error boxes haven't gone away. What can I do? Is there some way to disable this kind of error for inline images? Alex
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
Alex Farran wrote: Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net into it. ian.
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
Ian Davey wrote: Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net (ad.uk.doubleclick.net in my case) Thanks, that's nearly done it. Now I get the connection was refused when attempting to contact ad.uk.doubleclick.net. I need to set some permissions somewhere I guess. Alex
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Davey wrote: Alex Farran wrote: Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net into it. err... that's not going to help by itself. that gives the same effect as the actions of his admins. with that hosts file, mozilla will look for the doubleclick server at 127.0.0.1, and, unless you have a web server running on your machine, you'll get a popup telling you it couldn't reach the server. i guess you could replace 127.0.0.1 in the above with the address of the corporate web site or something, so mozilla will give 404 errors in the page instead of the annoying popups. or you could install some kind of simple web service on your machine. but i agree that the popups can be annoying. one site i visit has an image with a typo in the tag. IE and netscape 4 just ignore it silently, but mozilla insists on popping up an error to tell me it can't reach the site. this would, i think, be fixed by one of the most-duped and most-voted bugs, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586 -- michael
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
michael lefevre wrote: i guess you could replace 127.0.0.1 in the above with the address of the corporate web site or something, so mozilla will give 404 errors in the page instead of the annoying popups. or you could install some kind of simple web service on your machine. Thanks, that's fixed it. this would, i think, be fixed by one of the most-duped and most-voted bugs, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586 Glad I'm not alone! Alex
Re: How can I tell Mozilla to print preview (and print) also backgroundimages?
Recent builds (I'm using 2002030511 for Win32) include new print preview tools, including a page setup button that allows you to specify whether background images will appear. It works on preview for me, but I didn't try printing a page out. Georg Maaß wrote: I make heavy use of backgground images attached to paragraphs to be displayed in the top padding as symbol indicating the type of information contained in this paragraph class. How can I tell Mozilla to print and print preview also that background images?
OT: SPAM, PORN, and other irrational arguments (was: Re: Look atthat)
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: In every case when evidence is gathered when the person is arrested. They have vast quantities of of porn of all types and are subscribed to many porn sites of all types. So according to your logic every pedophile is a porn addict. Does that make every porn addict a pedophile? - I think not. If all cows have four legs. Does that make everything with four legs a cow? So I don't see any redeeming qualities for Porn. and Think it should be banned period world wide and the persons creating it be put in jail for the rest of their natural life. Please tell me you are part of the +50% of the population that does *not* vote in the US. But then agin the statement in the last two sentences are strictly by opinions and beliefs. What else could they possibly be? Statement of fact? Good one. PS. Pedophilia is a serious issue. Just like censorship and autocracy are. If we put everyone in jail forever who has four legs, then good night to us all. ;) -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Look at that -- make SPAM illegal - finally!
Fred Stone wrote: Peter Lairo wrote: If I just forward a spam mail, is the header included? (My settings are: forward *inline*) If you view all headers, they'll show up in the forwarded email. I just noticed that (in this NG) the Forward button doesn't do anything (bug?). I'm using build 2002-03-04, winNT. :( -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: How can I tell Mozilla to print preview (and print) also background images?
Dan Howard wrote: Recent builds (I'm using 2002030511 for Win32) include new print preview tools, including a page setup button that allows you to specify whether background images will appear. It works on preview for me, but I didn't try printing a page out. I is enough, when someone of the developers knows about that and is working on. I just wanted to confirm, whether I simply did not see where to configure this, or whether this is something which should be set onto the wish list. But if you say that someone is working on that, then this is ok for me. Thanks.
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
On 3/6/2002 5:07 AM, Bundy apparently wrote exactly the following:
Mozilla looks like is going in the wrong direction. The early builds of
..9.8 were much better. The mail-news focus bug is horrible. 1.0 is
going to be way off in the future
0.9.9 was NOT released yet.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
On 3/6/2002 7:16 AM, Bundy apparently wrote exactly the following:
Kryptolus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Bundy wrote:
Mozilla looks like is going in the wrong direction. The early builds of
.9.8 were much better. The mail-news focus bug is horrible. 1.0 is going
to be way off in the future
What are you talking about?
Mozilla 0.9.9 has not been released yet.
Yes it has. I got it from the ftp server.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9
That's a branch nightly, _not_a_release_.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases
There. NO 0.9.9 yet.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
On 3/6/2002 7:12 AM, Bundy apparently wrote exactly the following:
Jay Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 03/05/2002 10:07 PM, Bundy wrote:
Mozilla looks like is going in the wrong direction. The early builds of
.9.8 were much better. The mail-news focus bug is horrible. 1.0 is going
to be way off in the future
Wrong Jay
No, right he is.
Download from Mozilla
Welcome to Mozilla Setup. You are about to install Mozilla version
0.9.9.2002030514
That's a branch nightly, duh!
Check got it from the FTP server.
See my other post.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No need to thank me
Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06 Mar 2002: NO NO NO, it was JTK who fixed this. Really. Of course. Without him, nothing would ever have been fixed, ever. Every bug in Bugzilla would still be either Assigned or New, right? -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
Pratik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The *real* story http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=searchStoryID=665144 fyi, it *doesn't* affect NS6 and Mozilla. Pratik. FYI, the article mentions *any* email package. It does not say that NS6 and Mozilla are excluded. Get your facts right before you flame anyone in my froup. -- Gazwad Freelance scientist and people tester.
Re: No need to thank me
DeMoN LaG wrote: Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06 Mar 2002: NO NO NO, it was JTK who fixed this. Really. Of course. Without him, nothing would ever have been fixed, ever. Every bug in Bugzilla would still be either Assigned or New, right? Not only that, he is the only one that report bugs, without him bugzilla would be an empty database. Then he change the status to New and later on just fixes them. So the conclusion is: if something goes wrong with mozilla he is the one to blame. :-p
Re: A Real Full Screen Mode
Laubrino wrote: And what about long long pages? Quite hard to scroll this way... i guess this is a possible solution, the eagle eye will illustrate the canvas with a grid, when the page is more long than the eagle eye can illustrate, moving the red frame to the direccion where the page continue, the grid will autoscroll indicating that you are move forward. inline: EagleEye_with_frames.jpg
Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce not found errors
michael lefevre wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Davey wrote: Alex Farran wrote: Hi, The place where I work has blocked access to doubleclick. Now every time I go to a site with adverts on it I get a pop-up error telling me that Mozilla can't find doubleclick. I preferred the adverts! Find your hosts file, under Windows NT its under: c:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc and add: 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net into it. err... that's not going to help by itself. that gives the same effect as the actions of his admins. with that hosts file, mozilla will look for the doubleclick server at 127.0.0.1, and, unless you have a web server running on your machine, you'll get a popup telling you it couldn't reach the server. That's strange, it has always worked for me and I don't have a web server running on my machine (NT4). It should always reach that server anyway, as it just points straight at the local machine. I used to use the same technique with Netscape 1 on Win3.1 and it worked just as well... I don't get any error popups. ian.
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:35:48 -0500, Gazwad cried into the void: Pratik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The *real* story http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=searchStoryID=665144 fyi, it *doesn't* affect NS6 and Mozilla. Pratik. FYI, the article mentions *any* email package. It does not say that NS6 and Mozilla are excluded. Get your facts right before you flame anyone in my froup. From the Symantec site on Klez: W32.Klez.D@mm is a modified variant of W32.Klez.A@mm. Most of the functionality remains the same. The virus that W32.Klez.A@mm carried, W32.Elkern.3326, is also carried and inserted on the system by this variant. The worm exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express in an attempt to execute itself when you open or even preview the message. Further information and a patch for the vulnerability can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-020.asp It is a flaw in MIME header handling unique to IE. It doesn't affect Netscape or Mozilla. Gaz should check his facts before flaming someone in his froup. Regards, 0 -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one Free your mind, and your OS will follow
Re: pop-ups at nytimes.com not killed
gavin long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Yeah. I've had one or two others sneak by, too. This kind of thing is always going to be an arms race... But rather a stupid one for the advertisers surely? - they're trying to force adverts on people who have gone to the trouble to deliberately stop this type of stuff! This is not going to get them many more sales...
Re: Problem site? www.cox.com
I have the same problem today, using NS 6.2.1 -- site comes in OK with IE6, but just spins its wheels on a blank page with NS, eventually coming back with connection refused. I ran the page through the W3C HTML validation service (using IE), and after an inordinately long time, it responded with this: Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog. You should make the first line of your HTML document a DOCTYPE declaration, for example, for a typical HTML 4.01 document... I tried again, selecting HTML 4.01 Transitional (as likely to be the most forgiving). Again, it took a long, long time, then responded with a huge list of code errors, from improper nesting to missing tags. The page is basically a horrible mess. No wonder NS is choking on it -- so should any decent browser. Cheers, Martin Christopher Jahn wrote: On 03 Mar 2002, you wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general: I can't seem to access www.cox.com in Mozilla 0.97. It works fine in Netscape (4.78), but I've tried multiple times to access it in Moz, and I get The connection was refused when attempting to contact www.cox.com I know this has happened in the past when a site was too busy or something, but it consistently works with Netscape, and consistently doesn't work with Moz, at least for the last 10 minutes. Works fine in 0.9.8. Rotten bastards don't offer a Flash-free page. Must be hell on dial-up surfers looking in. Speaking of poor netiquette, your sig dash is missing - you should have a -- above your sig. I had to manually trim your sig in the reply. Time consuming.
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
The *real* story http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=searchStoryID=665144 fyi, it *doesn't* affect NS6 and Mozilla. Pratik. FYI, the article mentions *any* email package. It does not say that NS6 and Mozilla are excluded. Get your facts right before you flame anyone in my froup. Ahem. Are you talking to yourself? Here is the paragraph you are talking about, and I quote: The worm can infect computers running any e-mail system, but only sends itself to recipients listed in the address books of Microsoft Corp.'s MSFT.O Outlook, Hypponen said. Had you bothered to read further you would noticed that the worm gets spread only by Outlook and its variants.
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds onWednesday
The original poster is *obviously* a troll(1). Unless you *know* that Mozilla / Netscape 6 is vulnerable to automatically(2) running or spreading the virus and you have a testcase, please stop responding / posting to this thread. Thanks. (1) somebody who knowingly posts wrong information and then watches people discuss / correct it (2) The user doesn't himself start an executable Ben Bucksch Beonex http://www.beonex.com
Re: Look at that -- make SPAM illegal - finally!
Peter Lairo wrote: It is high time an effective law is passed prohibiting spam. This seems to be a no-bariner to me. I would vote a politician into office on this issue alone, as long as he/she isn't a real jerk. We in norway have an anti-spam law now :) if one breaks it, one is liable for as much as two years in prison :) ... of course, it is limited to spam directed at an induvidual consumer, so it's still legal to spam businesses -- Morten Nilsen, aka Dr. P We are the borg^]dbdbiMicrosoft. Prepare to be assimilated^]dbiembraced and extended. Resistance is futile^]dbdbdbiWe know you want it. :wq
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
just to put it simple : a few months ago i was beta testing windows XP. Just because i was using something that said Windows XP, it did't mean that this was the *actual* windows XP that people are using nowadays. It just means that i had windows XP beta or XP release candidate. It's not the real thing yet. Eric Bundy wrote: Jay Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On 03/05/2002 10:07 PM, Bundy wrote: Mozilla looks like is going in the wrong direction. The early builds of .9.8 were much better. The mail-news focus bug is horrible. 1.0 is going to be way off in the future Wrong Jay Download from Mozilla Welcome to Mozilla Setup. You are about to install Mozilla version 0.9.9.2002030514 Check got it from the FTP server. -- Kyle
javascript with mozilla 0.9.8
Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with
mozilla build 20020228.
Thanks
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN
html
head
titleDAB Post Manager/title
/head
script language=JavaScript1.2
var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
if(ie4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=90,40,*,42');}
if(ns4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=93,40,*,45');}
/script
frame name=search
src=../postfach/search.cfm?portfolio=7154050appsid=5685313362526179328medium=8
marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 scrolling=no frameborder=0 noresize
frame name=tbhead src=../postfach/head.cfm marginwidth=0
marginheight=0 scrolling=no frameborder=0 noresize
frame name=eboxbody src=../postfach/body.cfm marginwidth=0
marginheight=0 scrolling=auto frameborder=0 noresize
frame name=eboxfooter src=../postfach/footer.cfm?portfolio=7154050
marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 scrolling=no frameborder=0 noresize
/frameset
/html
Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?
Just wondering what people on this forum think about Mozilla's usability in a business environment. I have no doubts that the browser, even in it's current form can be deployed. My concern however is the Mail application. Has anyone deployed Mozilla on a large scale? What shortcomings did yoor users encounter most often? Do you think Mozilla 1.0 will have these fixed?
Re: javascript with mozilla 0.9.8
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Huerkamp wrote:
Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with
mozilla build 20020228.
Thanks
[snip]
script language=JavaScript1.2
var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
if(ie4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=90,40,*,42');}
if(ns4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=93,40,*,45');}
/script
Mozilla supports the W3C DOM, which uses document.getElementById. File a
Tech Evangelism bug in Bugzilla (unless there's a bug already open on your
bank-search using the URL field in Bugzilla).
--
Chris Hoess
Re: No need to thank me
gavin long wrote: JTK wrote: You'll notice that my bitching finally got AOL to add the two-line percent complete in the download progress box title fix that I posted a while back. For those who want to know who really deserves the credit, three cheers for Bill Law, who appears to have had some assistance from Brian Ryner in getting things building OK on linux. Implying of course that if you look in the source, you'll see nothing resembling my two-line patch. Naha.
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
You appear to be deluded. Get a life. -- Gazwad Freelance scientist and people tester. Ben Bucksch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... The original poster is *obviously* a troll(1). Unless you *know* that Mozilla / Netscape 6 is vulnerable to automatically(2) running or spreading the virus and you have a testcase, please stop responding / posting to this thread. Thanks. (1) somebody who knowingly posts wrong information and then watches people discuss / correct it (2) The user doesn't himself start an executable Ben Bucksch Beonex http://www.beonex.com
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
Gazwad Dont Be So Far King Wee Tar Did wrote in news:3c868b06$1 @news1.homechoice.co.uk, on 06 Mar 2002: You appear to be deluded. Get a life. You are a troll, sir. Good bye! *plonk* -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
Bundy, I think you have misunderstood how Mozilla releases work, or rather how they are named. To begin, a release signifies a publicly available piece of software called Mozilla, which has achieved certain stability milestones. A milestone release is made available publicly every six weeks, or so. The last publicly available milestone release is Mozilla 0.9.8. Before a milestone release is made available, there are several pre-releases (test releases, if you like), which are called branch builds. These are called branch builds, because a milestone is a branch off the main Mozilla trunk. Imagine an apple tree. As the apple tree grows, it gets new branches. Each branch is still part of the apple tree, though. If a branch of this apple tree looks solid (like it will hold three unruly children climbing up it), then it could be called a branch build or if its really, really stable a milestone build, or simply a milestone. Think of Mozilla developers as gardeners. They trim off dead leaves, and water the tree, and pray to the apple tree Gods. For more information on this please see the Mozilla roadmap: http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html A build signifies a publicly available piece of software called Mozilla, which is not necessarily as stable as a milestone release or a release. Builds are made available every night, hence the term nightly build. What you assumed to be Mozilla 0.9.9 (confusingly enough in a folder containing the same name on the Mozilla FTP server), is actually a pre-release version of Mozilla 0.9.9. It will be a lot like Mozilla 0.9.9, but is NOT Mozilla 0.9.9 I hope this clear things up and that the apple tree metaphor did not go too far. Regards, - Jayesh Bundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:irih8.19579$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Jay Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On 03/05/2002 10:07 PM, Bundy wrote: Mozilla looks like is going in the wrong direction. The early builds of .9.8 were much better. The mail-news focus bug is horrible. 1.0 is going to be way off in the future Wrong Jay Download from Mozilla Welcome to Mozilla Setup. You are about to install Mozilla version 0.9.9.2002030514 Check got it from the FTP server.
Re: Look at that
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: I wouldn't call it a positive view on women that females are weaker and more naive than males and therefore it is a mans job to protect women from all the evilness on this planet -- I would call it an EXTREMELY SEXIST view on women!!! But he never wrote that! You are putting words in his mouth. Anyhow, hopefully Philip M. Jones is reading these posts, and if that is the case, he might want to speak up for himself. Quotes from Phillip's posts in this thread: Why is it worse for a woman to see a spam message than for a man? If it about Morgages or credit cards. Its Not. But the majority I see is x-rated stuff. Some men get their jollies seeing junk like that - NOT ME. However; that stuff would be downright offensive to a Woman. Just think you as woman scaning message topics to read and happen to open one showung a picture of a mans Tool, or a woman's privates wouldn't you find that offensive? [...] That may or may not be true. Sometimes the female may be tricked into doing the photos. Sometimes they are in a relationship with a Man and pose for him only. Then the cad sells the photo's. Those statements sound pretty sexist if you ask me. Regarding the fact that Phillip M. Jones is back in this thread, let welcome him to reply and elaborate on this himself. IF you were a porn addict, I'd suspect that the emotional relations be more or less disturbed, but you've really made me confused now, since it's obvious that you don't wanna tell what you REALLY think about porn. Well, you don't have to - let's skip the subject. Personally, I do not have a problem with porn, and do not consider it offending, but I am not a porn addict either. I agree that it seems likely that people who really are addicted to porn have problems with their emotional relations. I was thinking a little about the French Revolution, since you use the concepts of freedom and equality (but not brotherhood). One of the inspirers of the ideas of the French Revolution was of course Rousseau, which in 1762 published the manifest Du contrat social - the social contract - describing in what way society and its leadership ought to be organized to meet the citizens' need of freedom and security. A society where the state/leadership takes care of the average citizen's needs seems like a very nice solution, wouldn't you say? It would be an ideal world. The conclusion was that you as a citizen and the state should be drawing up a contract, regulating the relations between the state and the citizens. My thought was that if you apply such a contract, not only between the state and you, but in every private relation of every kind, then you rule out every possibility of spontaneity and real change - and real life. Why? Because then all important matters would have already been decided upon when - so to speak - signing the contract. Absolutely. Life would be incredibly dull if your private relations was based on contracts. But mine isn't. What makes you think that they are? I'm afraid I forgot! :-o Here is something I am very curious about; how come that you think that I want to ban porn? I'm not sure -- I think it's because just most other persons I have talked to who are against pornography was in favor of making it illegal. But since you are not, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Never mind. There is another, new thread Look at that, where the posters want to ban spam. Now, read this carefully: I don't even want to ban spam about porn! In an ideal world, only very few people would send spam, and those that did would not be morons like Bernard Shifman, so there would be no reason to ban spam. But unfortunately this is not an ideal world, so I would like to see spam be made illegal. On a side note, I do actually consider porn spam to be worse than other spam, partly because even though I will only be as annoyed as I am with all other spam, I know that it will offend some of the recipients, and partly because spam is usually sent to as many email accounts as possible, including those belonging to small children. And it is definitely _not_ healthy for a 10-year old child to watch porn. This is not a legal matter; this is a matter of opinions, sympathies and antipathies. Regarding pornography, I agree. Regarding spam, I _would_ very much like to agree, but as I said, in this far from ideal world, there is simply too much spam for me to just ignore. Spam is easily ignored. With a little experience you can always tell from the subject or the sender line whether it's spam or not. Just scroll past it. It's not a big deal. (Am I wrong to believe that it is you that cannot keep yourself from opening these posts..?) I don't believe in calling for the police every time someone does something bad. I agree with you.
Who is the user?
http://www.mozilla.org.uk/docs/personae/ This is my contribution to the Who is Mozilla's target user? debate. Comments welcome :-) Gerv
Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday
DeMaN LoG n@a wrote in message news:204.29.187.156... You are a troll, sir. Good bye! *plonk* Victim -- Gazwad Freelance scientist and people tester.
Favaicons
Using Mozilla 0.9.8, can someone tell me how to turn on favaicons? Thanks -- Wayne Alligood/Amelia Island, Florida Compaq Computer running Windows XP/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Words rightly spoken are like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
Check out these naked women wrestling
You've never seen anything quite like this before! BLOW combines wrestling, beautiful women, and so much lesbian sex! Not just a wrestling site though, BLOW adds 300,000+ pics to the mix. Trust your friends from 4PlayMail to find you the hottest entertainment to literally blow you away! NOTE: This is not SPAM! This email was sent to you because your email was entered on a website requesting to be a registered subscriber. If you did not request this email, click here to unsubscribe
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
People love to hear themselves. How many time people have to post the same information that other have posted before? Enough with this thread. Time to kill it
Re: Favaicons
WDA wrote: Using Mozilla 0.9.8, can someone tell me how to turn on favaicons? Thanks read 0.9.8 release notes for starters.
Re: Look at that
Peemm wrote: Spam is easily ignored. With a little experience you can always tell from the subject or the sender line whether it's spam or not. Just scroll past it. It's not a big deal. (Am I wrong to believe that it is you that cannot keep yourself from opening these posts..?) Yes, you are wrong. In newsgroups, I usually just press N or hit the space bar when I have finished reading a post. I often have no idea of which message or even which thread it will take me to. Sexism is like life's own spice. Sometimes women treat me in a sexist way. Most times I don't like it, because I realize that they think I'm stupid or something, not because of anything I said, only because I happen to be male. But other women combine sexism with respect. They respect you as a fellow human being, but first and foremost you are a man. They treat you differently, only because of your sex. This brings a most satisfying feeling. Therefore, I do NOT wish you good luck in your fight against sexism. /P.M. PS. Sexism as described in my dictionary = det att behandla el. betrakta människor olika enbart p.g.a. deras kön I'm only against _negative_ sexism -- e.g., when women are paid less for doing some job than men are for doing the exact same job, only because of the fact that they happen to be female. Your dictionary's definition of sexism (treating people differently because of their sex, for those of you who don't understand Swedish) is not what I was talking about, and I think you know it. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Peemm wrote: I don't believe in calling for the police every time someone does something bad. I agree with you. No, in practice you don't. Why do you think so? /Jonas
Re: Bugzilla
Jiri Znamenacek wrote: Is there a way of changing account email to another one? The option to change it through your Bugzilla preferences is being worked on, but for now you'll have to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask him to change it for you. /Jonas
Re: For all the Einsteins, this is where you got Mozilla .9.9 from
On 03/06/2002 12:18 AM, Bundy wrote: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9 Not even Garcia knew about this, which shocks me. Guess not but maybe my header info User_Agent string may save me !!! It's a peice of shit though. You're entitled to your foul opinion. Geeze ... Well at least you're consistent. You have no idea what you're talking about here OR in the other groups you visit. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: For all the Einsteins, this is where you got Mozilla .9.9 from
On 03/06/2002 12:25 AM, Jason Fleshman wrote: Bundy wrote: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest-0.9.9 Not even Garica knew about this, which shocks me. It's a peice of shit though. You have an incomplete understanding of how the Mozilla builds work. Anything in the latest directory is /not/ a milestone release. The builds in ../latest-0.9.9 are the builds that the Mozilla people are working on to try to make 0.9.9 (the 0.9.9 branch). When they've squashed enough bugs to satisfy themselves, the real 0.9.9 will be released, a post will be placed on the mozilla.org and mozillazine.org home pages, and there will be a post made here as well. As for its piece-of-shit-ness, there are a lot of last-minute fixes being tried out that may be quick as opposed to permanent (that's what the trunk is for), so the quality of these candidate builds can be every bit as variable as a nightly. When the real 0.9.9 is released, they'll tell us :) --Jason Good reply Jason but you're wasting your time. He has no intention of learning or contributing to the cause. -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Re: Favaicons
dman84 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: WDA wrote: Using Mozilla 0.9.8, can someone tell me how to turn on favaicons? Thanks read 0.9.8 release notes for starters. Specifically, the relevant portion says: # Mozilla no longer reads /favicon.ico images by default although Mozilla still reads page icons defined with the link tag. Set the following pref to turn the feature back on. user_pref(browser.chrome.favicons,true);
Re: Bugzilla
Thank you very much ^_^ Jirka
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
RV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 06 Mar 2002: Gosh: People love to hear themselves. How many time people have to post the same information that other have posted before? Enough with this thread. Time to kill it The easiest thing to do is just plonk, killfile, or pass over anything by that little troll who started the thread -- AIM: FlyersR1 9 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ = m
0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue
High all, Using the win32 version of 0.9.8 for a couple days now. I have just noticed some odd behavior though. When I click the minimiz button, Moz doesn't minimize. It's strange. If I have multiple programs running with their windows displayed, then clicking on the minimize button will seem to do the job and hand the focus over to another app, but if I minimize all other windows, the Mozilla window will still be displayed as if I never minimized it. I can maximize and restore the window just fine though. Very strange. I'm not sure if this is a Windows problem or a Mozilla problem though. All my other apps behave normally, so I'm leaning toward a Moz issue. Has anyone else experienced this? TIA! -- Mark Wagnon mwagnon(no spam please)yahoo.com
Re: 0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue
Mark wrote: High all, Using the win32 version of 0.9.8 for a couple days now. I have just noticed some odd behavior though. When I click the minimiz button, Moz doesn't minimize. It's strange. If I have multiple programs running with their windows displayed, then clicking on the minimize button will seem to do the job and hand the focus over to another app, but if I minimize all other windows, the Mozilla window will still be displayed as if I never minimized it. I can maximize and restore the window just fine though. Very strange. I'm not sure if this is a Windows problem or a Mozilla problem though. All my other apps behave normally, so I'm leaning toward a Moz issue. Has anyone else experienced this? TIA! Yeah. Please please please do a search on bugzilla.mozilla.org next type. It's a common problem. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120155 Don't add anything new unless you're 100% sure it's important.
Re: javascript with mozilla 0.9.8
Guenter Huerkamp wrote:
Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with
mozilla build 20020228.
Thanks
script language=JavaScript1.2
var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
if(ie4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=90,40,*,42');}
if(ns4){document.write('frameset border=0 rows=93,40,*,45');}
/script
Because your code here says: If the browser is Netscape 4, do this. If
it is IE4, do that. However, Mozilla is neither Netscape 4 nor IE4. So
your code does nothing.
Re: 0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue
Kryptolus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Mark wrote: High all, Using the win32 version of 0.9.8 for a couple days now. I have just noticed some odd behavior though. When I click the minimiz button, Moz doesn't minimize. It's strange. If I have multiple programs running with their windows displayed, then clicking on the minimize button will seem to do the job and hand the focus over to another app, but if I minimize all other windows, the Mozilla window will still be displayed as if I never minimized it. I can maximize and restore the window just fine though. Very strange. I'm not sure if this is a Windows problem or a Mozilla problem though. All my other apps behave normally, so I'm leaning toward a Moz issue. Has anyone else experienced this? TIA! Yeah. Please please please do a search on bugzilla.mozilla.org next type. It's a common problem. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120155 Don't add anything new unless you're 100% sure it's important. Feel free to add anything you want here. No one controls this forum. Problems don't get noticed if people don't complain. I have had the same problem by the way. One reason I am using Outlook Express. Reporting problems and issues with Mozilla is what this forum is about. The mail focus bug is another whopper. 0.9.8 looked good two weeks ago, it has gone in full reverse since then. -- Kyle
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
DeMoN LaG wrote: The easiest thing to do is just plonk, killfile, or pass over anything by that little troll who started the thread People using Mozilla don't have a killfile or newsfilter. You lucky Xnews-User you. :-)) -- Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man) Netscape 6 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/netscape6.html
