Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[Holger Metzger]

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

Re: 0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue

[Bundy]

"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: javascript with mozilla 0.9.8

[Garth Wallace]

Guenter Huerkamp wrote:
> Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with 
> mozilla build 20020228.
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
> var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
> 
> if(ie4){document.write('');}
> if(ns4){document.write('');}
> 


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]

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.

0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue

[Mark]

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: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[DeMoN LaG]

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

Re: Bugzilla

[Jiri Znamenacek]

Thank you very much ^_^
   Jirka

Re: Favaicons

[Michael A. Koenecke]

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  tag. Set the following 
pref to turn the feature back on.

user_pref("browser.chrome.favicons",true);

Re: For all the Einsteins, this is where you got Mozilla .9.9 from

[Jay Garcia]

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: For all the Einsteins, this is where you got Mozilla .9.9 from

[Jay Garcia]

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: Bugzilla

[Jonas Jørgensen]

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: Look at that

[Jonas Jørgensen]

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: Look at that

[Jonas Jørgensen]

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: Favaicons

[dman84]

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: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[RV]

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

Bugzilla

[Jiri Znamenacek]

Is there a way of changing account email to another one?
  Thanks,
 Jirka

Check out these naked women wrestling

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

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 

Favaicons

[WDA]

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."

Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday

[Gazwad]

DeMaN LoG"  wrote in message news:@204.29.187.156...
>
> You are a troll, sir.  Good bye! *plonk*
>


Victim

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.

Who is "the user"?

[Gervase Markham]

http://www.mozilla.org.uk/docs/personae/

This is my contribution to the "Who is Mozilla's target user?" debate. 
Comments welcome :-)

Gerv

Re: Look at that

[Peemm]

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

Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[Jayesh Sheth]

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:...
> "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: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday

[DeMoN LaG]

"Gazwad"  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: No need to thank me

[JTK]

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

[Gazwad]

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
> 
>

Re: javascript with mozilla 0.9.8

[Chris Hoess]

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]
>
> var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
> var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;
> 
> if(ie4){document.write('');}
> if(ns4){document.write('');}
>

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

Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?

[yatsu]

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?

javascript with mozilla 0.9.8

[Guenter Huerkamp]

Can someone tell me why my banking site produce an empty page with 
mozilla build 20020228.
Thanks


  


DAB Post Manager




var ns4 = (document.layers) ? 1 : 0;
var ie4 = (document.all) ? 1 : 0;

if(ie4){document.write('');}
if(ns4){document.write('');}

Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[Eric]

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Look at that <-- make SPAM illegal - finally!

[Morten Nilsen]

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: Problem site? www.cox.com

[Martin Holmes]

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 onWednesday

[Ben Bucksch]

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

Re: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday

[Bamm Gabriana]

> > The *real* story
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=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: pop-ups at nytimes.com not killed

[smcx1]

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: Blocked doubleclick adds produce "not found" errors

[Ian Davey]

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

[Lessthan0]

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=search&StoryID=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: A Real Full Screen Mode

[Lancer]

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.

<>

Re: No need to thank me

[A Martinez]

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: New Virus set to hit for Netscape 6.21 and Mozilla builds on Wednesday

[Gazwad]

"Pratik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The *real* story
>
> http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=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]

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: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[Sören Kuklau]

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

[Sören Kuklau]

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: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows

[Sören Kuklau]

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: How can I tell Mozilla to print preview (and print) also background images?

[Georg Maaß]

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: Look at that <-- make SPAM illegal - finally!

[Peter Lairo]

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

OT: SPAM, PORN, and other irrational arguments (was: Re: Look atthat)

[Peter Lairo]

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: How can I tell Mozilla to print preview (and print) also backgroundimages?

[Dan Howard]

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?
> 

Re: Blocked doubleclick adds produce "not found" errors

[Alex Farran]

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: Blocked doubleclick adds produce "not found" errors

[michael lefevre]

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

[Alex Farran]

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

[Ian Davey]

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.

Blocked doubleclick adds produce "not found" errors

[Alex Farran]

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: A Real Full Screen Mode

[Laubrino]

Lancer wrote:
> 
>  > If there are 3 frames
>  > shown, each one scrolling, how will the floating slider thing work? Will
>  > there be three floating navigation panels?  Will there be one with three
>  > slider boxes within?  I'm just trying to get a full sense of what you
>  > intend.
> 
> - if there are three frames, the eagle eye will illustrate the page like 
> the attached pic.
> 

And what about long long pages? Quite hard to scroll this way...

-- 
Tomas Laubr
KHS Plzen
019/71 55 124
(za 390)

Re: No need to thank me

[Thomas]

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.
> 
> Reading the bugzilla report, this was actually part of a rewrite of the 
> progress window, which also fixed up a whole raft of much less obvious 
> but far more vicious bugs, several of which involved data loss.  I 
> suspect it's also related to the long-rumoured download manager (but 
> that's just guesswork on my part).
> 


NO NO NO, it was JTK who fixed this. Really.

Re: cross-browser/platform bookmark manager ???

[Chuck R. Bell]

Alu wrote:
> Hello Everyone.
> 
> I currently have my bookmarks strewn about several different browsers and 
> operating systems. Has anyone found an easy way to keep them synchronized? 
> None of the bookmark managers that I have found seem to realize that 
> Mozilla even exists. Here is my 'wish list' of features:
> 
> - support for Mozilla, the KDE browser and IE
> - import and export from all of the above
> - display of long description fields (hey - I've spent a lot of time typing 
> them in - I want to be able to use them)
> - duplicate bookmark identification/handling
> - synchronization of the current browsers's bookmarks to the main 
> collection.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> 

I currently have the same problem... even more complicated by the fact 
that I'm using Slackware Linux, Debian, Win98, W2k, and NT on various 
machines  and am working on using Samba to set up roaming profiles. In 
my lab I'm testing a wide variety of browsers and e-mail applications.

I haven't got it quite got everything working yet but this seems the 
most logical approach. It's kindaof a bitch to set up, though... lot's 
of security issues and complex domain authorization issues to set up. 
Whew! I don't even know for sure if sharing profiles from both Linux and 
MS boxes will really even work, but I'm crazy enough to try it! Samba 
should be able to accomplish this if anything can. Check out 
http://www.samba.org.

Meanwhile, on my Linux boxes, I'm sym-linking my bookmarks.html files to 
a master bookmark file and using a program called Gnobog under Gnome 
(look on FreshMeat.net or Gnome.org) to import and edit the master.

Also under Windows I'm using an old but very useful program called the 
Columbine Bookmark Merge v3.3 available from 
http://home.earthlink.net/~garycramblitt/
CBM imports, merges, sorts and does many other neat tricks with Mozilla, 
Netscape bookmarks and IE Favorites. It isn't public-domain or 
freeware... it is called "donation-ware" where you are requested to 
donate to a fund for elementary school teachers. It's cool, though!
FYI also, you have to do cr/lf translations when copying bookmarks to 
and from Windows and Linux... there are lots of utilities around to do this.

Hope this helps -

C

How can I tell Mozilla to print preview (and print) also background images?

[Georg Maaß]

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?