Please find the IP address of whomever is subscribing mozilla-generalto your mailing lists
Att. About.com postmaster/abuse department, Someone has subscribed [EMAIL PROTECTED] to several of your newsletters. Mozilla-general is a mailing list, and should not be subscribed to these newsletters. Could you please tell us the IP address of the person who has done this so we can report him/her to his/her ISP? Thanks in advance. /Jonas
Re: Source of About.com newsletter spam known?
Jayesh Sheth wrote: Does anyone know how this newsgroup has begun to receive About.com Newsletters? I've mailed About.com asking them to give us the IP address of the person who subscribed us. I've set Reply-To to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so the reply will end up here in the group. How could someone subscribe a newsgroup to an email newsletter? I'm confused. The newsgroups are also available as mailing lists. n.p.m.general is also known as [EMAIL PROTECTED] /Jonas
Re: Dynamic proxy switching
Rupert James wrote: (2) Is there a way in Mozilla to filter out posts by known trolls? Something like Block Sender in Outlook Express? (Create filter seems to be greyed out for the addresses of NG posters.) Not yet. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10097. /Jonas
Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?
Bamm Gabriana wrote: It is. Let a = 1. a^2 = a (multiply both sides by a) a^2 - 1 = a - 1 (subtract 1 from both sides) (a + 1)(a - 1) = (a - 1) (factor it) (a + 1) = 1 (cancel common factors) 1 + 1 = 1 (substitution.) QED/ :) 1 + 2 = 3. Ergo 4 + 5 = 6. /Jonas
Re: better looking icon in win32
Jason Fleshman wrote: Ah. Took a look at the source of the page; he has it in an onClick. When the link that does the install showed up as already visited and with the page's URL as its destination, I thought he might have just linked the page back to itself. Maybe he should use a JavaScript URL instead to avoid confusing dumba**es like me :) Most certanly not. The current way, people who have disabled JavaScript will still be able to use the link. If he made the link point to javascript:(something), they wouldn't. /Jonas
Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: That does sound logical Please! Do you really have to quote *20* lines and a *14* line signature just to add *1* line of text? /Jonas
Re: I wish I had an email address with 'mozilla' in it...
Bamm Gabriana wrote: Since only those working directly with Mozilla have mozilla.org addresses, I wish there was like a mozillamail.org for moz lovers like me. If it's too long, mozmail.org would be fine. I would be contented with a forwarding address. Mpt uses an mozilla.org.uk address. http://www.mozilla.org.uk/ What would it take to have something like this? For someone to register the mozmail.org domain and set up a forwarding service. :-) I wouldn't expect AOL to pay for it, but mozilla.org doesn't seem to have anything against mozillanews.org or mozdev.org using the name Mozilla, so I don't think they would mind mozmail.org either. [Followup-To set to n.p.m.general.] /Jonas
Re: best way for pop-ups
Dazzle wrote: I want to stop javascript window.open() method when an HTML page loads or when you leave one but I want it to work when I click on a link. Edit|Preferences|Advanced|Scripts Windows|Open unrequested windows. /Jonas
Re: Have you seen a whole dinosaur drown?
Lancer, Blackbox, Johnny, Brayan... can't you just stick to one name? /Jonas
Re: Warum hat Mozilla 0.9.9 so viele neue Bugs? Ein Sabotuer?
Simon Montagu wrote: Prove that (a + b) (a - b) = a^2 - b^2 a * a = a^2 + * - = - b * b = b^2 Given: x not equal to 0, y not equal to 0, Prove: x + y = 0. Since x does not equal 0, then x + 1 does not equal 1, x + a does not equal a, x + y does not equal y. But what is y? y is anything but 0. Thus x + y is not equal to anything but 0. Since x + y cannot equal anything but 0, x + y = 0. Q.E.D.
Re: 0.9.9: remembering passwords etc.
hugo vanwoerkom wrote: 0.9.9 (previous versions also) WILL ask to remember uid, pw etc. for all sorts of sites, NEVER for www.yahoo.com/mail. Why is that? Because Yahoo! have chosen to opt out of Mozilla's password manager features. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93776 /Jonas
Re: NetScape 6.2 and HTML forms
jim patriarca wrote: Does anybody know why when setting action=mailto:; in an HTML form NS6 launches its Email program instead of popping up the the alert box that says something like you are about to send your email address over the internet etc.. Mozilla/NS6 doesn't support mailto:; forms. Why should it? They aren't part af the W3C standards, and the forms will not work for users who are viewing your site from public computer terminals which doesn't have a mail client configured. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61893. /Jonas
Re: How can I enable pop-ups for some sites?
Mr Ducky wrote: Also, the window it is opening may already exist. It seems reasonable to always allow window.open to work if the named window already exists (it isn't opening a new window, just getting a pointer to an old window). http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104470 /Jonas
Re: Display problem
Travis Crump wrote: Win 2K, build# 2002032003, Ctrl++ does nothing, Ctrl+- makes the text smaller (zooms out). Ctrl+= makes the text larger (zooms in). Is this a bug? http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54402 (VERIFIED WONTFIX) The Verified wontfix relates to the fact that Ctrl+= works, not that Ctrl++ doesn't work for which a separate bug is alluded to in the comments but a number isn't gived... http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 /Jonas
Re: Let's Vote! :)
Parish wrote: Send in your votes now! My vote: I'd rather have a Bundy. Bundies make a lot of sense if only they were more informed. Lancers are deluded souls. ROFLMAO Hey, you forgot to vote! ;-) /Jonas
Re: Download Moz
dman84 wrote: what gets me, is how barney got here to post.. Look at his headers. He used Communicator. /Jonas
Re: Must fix for 1.0?
Bamm Gabriana wrote: But among these bugs, are there some deemed so important that 1.0 will have to be delayed if these aren't checked in? I mean must-fix, not targetted-to-fix. All bugs with the 'mozilla1.0+' keyword. The '+' is very important -- there's also a 'mozilla1.0' keyword, but that only means that it has been /nominated/ as a 1.0-blocker, not that mozilla.org has accepted it. /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: That's why people, of Islamic faith not living in the USA are suspicious of the US. That is not the reason. The reason is more likely that they are afraid that their culture cannot survive when a better culture (human rights, democracy, freedom of speech - all rooted in LAW) keeps flaunting it's benefits. What are you saying? Islam is a bad, undemocratic culture? You are starting to sound like a racist. I'm sorry I have to say so, but you are. (And for the record: I'm not a Muslim. I'm not a Jew, either.) /Jonas
Re: The Standard
Jim Gabele wrote: For an earlier standard than this, pertaining to mammals in general and humans in particular (human history, remember), how about male (external plumbing) and female (internal plumbing). Now, why doesn't this newsgroup go back to Netscape and Mozilla discussion where it belongs? It's getting to be a real PITA going through messages to find anything useful! Press the 'K' key on your keyboard. That will kill this thread. :-) /Jonas
Re: bugzilla; lock symbol
Robert Joop wrote: when several tabs are open, some with http URLs, some with https URLs, the lock symbol in the lower right corner is not displayed correctly, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101723
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: That is not the reason. The reason is more likely that they are afraid that their culture cannot survive when a better culture (human rights, democracy, freedom of speech - all rooted in LAW) keeps flaunting it's benefits. What are you saying? Islam is a bad, undemocratic culture? Name *one* democratic islamic country. Don't recall any right now. But the fact that there is a lot of islamic countries which aren't democratic does certanly NOT mean that Islam is in itself bad or anti-democratic. There are plenty of undemocratic christian countries as well. You are starting to sound like a racist. I'm sorry I have to say so, but you are. Islam is not a race. I don't think the arabs are a race either (but I'm not sure). Having a very critical view of a culture doesn't make one a racist. Correct -- Islam is a religion, not a race. So what do you call it, then? A religionist? (And for the record: I'm not a Muslim. I'm not a Jew, either.) I didn't think you were. There are far fewer muslims ans Jews in Denmark than in the US and in Germany. Puts you in a better position to judge, doesn't it? I didn't think so! ;) What is your problem with muslims? Why does it make such a big difference to you whether people pray to the christian God or to Allah? /Jonas -- All religions suck. Mozilla is your only true god.
Re: The Standard
Brian Heinrich wrote: I don't think you /can/ validate for the XHTML 1.1 modules You can. The validator accepts /any/ page with a DOCTYPE declaration containing a URL to a DTD file. /Jonas
Re: Let's Vote! :)
Bamm Gabriana wrote: Would you rather have: 1) A JTK 2) A Bundy 3) A Lancer Kyle is not only ignorant, he tends to present his opinions as pure facts. Blackbox is just stupid. I think I'll go with good ol' Gary -- he's a troll, but sometimes, a /funny/ troll. /Jonas
Re: Download manager
Pratik wrote: Its part of the MachV spec so I gues it should be in. But I can't believe they used the tree widget for the Download Manager. Why didn't they use outliner? There's a bug for converting all tree widgets to outliner and they go ahead and write up new code that uses the tree widget? It will be converted to outliner as soon as http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129327 is fixed. /Jonas
Re: Key Sequence For Switching/Cycling Tabs?
Peter Lakanen wrote: Is there a key sequence (F6, Ctrl+Shift+Alt+Whatever, etc) to cycle through your open tabs? Ctrl+PageUp, Ctrl+PageDown. /Jonas
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonathon Lamon wrote: I have been wondering this question for some time. Why, all of the sudden, with the release of the Mozilla code, was the option to move the Cache diretory taken out? It wasn't. Everything was rewritten from scratch, and the option to move the Cache directory didn't make it into Netscape 6.2.1. The latest version of Mozilla does have it, however: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ /Jonas
Re: Mozilla and the poetry
blackbox wrote: i have written two bugs, a some commets in other bugs, all about the Design of the user interface... They has told me this: please stop wasting our time Here's some comments from bug 68136 (the full-screen mode bug): --- Additional Comment #248 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:03 --- WHY MOZILLA IS SO SLOW? WHY TAKES SO MUCH TIME TO LOAD MOZILLA? WHY ARE U WORKING ON MOZILLA, IF MOZILLA WILL NEVER WORK FAST AND GOOD? --- Additional Comment #249 From Lancer 2001-12-23 04:07 --- WHY MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER IS MORE FASTER? If that's the quality of your comments, I can understand why you are being told to stop wasting the developer's time. Are you a troll, Lancer? Or are you just a Bundy [1]? [1] For definition of a Bundy, see posting from PeEmm at Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:30:27 MET in thread Bundy vs. Jay Garcia. /Jonas
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Kenneth Pardue wrote: Yes but that shows total unread for the entire newsgroup. It doesn't show at a glance an indication if any of my watched threads have unread messages in them does it? All of the applications I've seen have the newsgroup name on the left pane change color (which, I might add, you can see if a message is watched even when it is a single message without any replies, and a watched message/thread changes color for ease to find when scrolling down). Bugzilla is your friend. The part about watch/kill thread icon not appearing on single-messages threads is a known bug (#122640). You should file RFEs for the rest. /Jonas
Re: New Server Traffic?
Mike Hatz (Remove the SPAM) wrote: What's going on? The news server seemed to eat about 4-6 days of posts and then most everyone else has vanished from the newsgroups You're using snews://secnews.netscape.com. Try using news://news.mozilla.org/. (They are actually the same server -- the difference lies in the news vs snews.) /Jonas
Re: Newsgroup Notifcation -- Is it a bug or a feature request or even known?
Kenneth Pardue wrote: I've filed two bugs on the matter. Here are the links: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131579 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131573 Hmm... I just confirmed bug 131573, and I got this message: Changes to bug 131573 submitted Email sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Excluding: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why have you turned off email notifications for when your bugs are confirmed? /Jonas
Re: Moving Cache Directory...
Jonathon Lamon wrote: Maybe it was only removed from Netscape? AOL have some reason to not allow us to move the Cache dir? As I already said in this thread said, it was not _removed_, it was simply _not implemented again_, as everything was rewritten from scratch. So the ability to move the Cache directory didn't make it into Netscape 6.2.1, but the latest version of Mozilla does have it: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/ The next version of Netscape, version 6.5, will have it as well. /Jonas
Re: The Standard
blackbox wrote: ¿What make them qualify to be categorized and be named 'standards'? If they are accepted by a recognized, trustworthy, independent, standard-defining organization. For instance: Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comments: http://www.ietf.org/rfc World Wide Webconsortium Recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/#Recommendations /Jonas
Re: mozilla 0.9.9 crashes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone asked why Talkback might want the username... there's a pretty big difference between running something as User and running something as Administrator. Shouldn't it then rather send the security permissions of the current user? The user name itself doesn't necessarily say anything about the user permissions. I can easily rename my Win2k Administrator login to NewbieEndUserAccount if I want to. /Jonas
Re: nighly builts are still named as 0.9.8+ (windows build at least
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and the 0.9.9 isn't as good as the nightly/latest at Mrch 1st was (also it is said thgat 0.9.9 was build from this or did i get something wrong?) Your User-Agent header is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.9+) Gecko/20020314 Where did you see the 0.9.8+? /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Restrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: Also, the US didn't create the third world. That's just ridiculous. I know people that work in the government and the IMF and they try VERY hard to balance helping poorer countries with the US's own needs. Isn't it the IMF that creates the so-called export zones in third world contries? The basic rules of export zones goes like this: There are no rules. National laws do not apply. Human rights do not apply. Companies do not pay taxes. Workers are not allowed to organize themselves in unions. Huge multinational companies are allowed to force the poor workers to do slave-like jobs, and destroy the environment at the same time. But they can't simply refuse to work there, as it's the only way they can get *any* money. Their only alternative is to die. Many people do actually die in the export zones, as there is absolutely zero protection even for people working with extremely dangerous machines or chemicals. But they have no choice. That is what the IMF promotes. Or is it the WTO? Not that there's much of a difference between those two. To say that the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank is actually trying to *help* third world contries is just bullshit. That's what they want you to believe (christ, I'm almost starting to sound like JTK here). Our good friend RMS has some interesting notes on this, among other political issues: http://stallman.org/#notes /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: Anarchy is a non-function system, as is kommunism and pure capitalism. What does that leave but socialism? /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: The damage the UN and kofi anan has done recently in isreal - pushing for an independant palestinian state - shows how blindly desparate many are to have the *appearance* of peace. Who cares who is right (the Israelis) and who is/was the aggressor (the Palestinian). WTF? Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, and vice versa. The difference lies in the fact that the Palestinians killing Israelies are private terrorists acting on their own will, but the Israelis killing Palestinians are mostly soldiers controlled by the Israeli government. While it is of course terrible that terrorists kill civilians, it is NEVER acceptable for a government to respond by launching military actions against innocent civilians. Yassir Arafat has numerous times urged the Palestinian terrorists to stop killing Israelies, yet the Israeli government still claims that he, personally, is to be held responsible for EVERY attack made on Israelies by ANY Palestinian. That is just ridiculous. /Jonas
Re: Mozilla 0.9.9 Drudge Report
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: If most were designed on Mac there would be near as many problems for mac people to view currently PC oriented pages. I don't understand what a PC oriented page is. What exactly do you mean? /Jonas
Re: 2 questions - profile and text zoom
Tom Hatta wrote: 2. I prefer text zoom at 150% for most pages, and would like pages to load at this setting for every tab/window that I open. Is there a way to configure Mozilla to do this? Default font size is set under Preferences|Appearance|Fonts. /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Restrictions
Chris Charabaruk wrote: But I digress . . . and this is probably /not/ the most appropriate place for political discussions anyway. . . . No, heh... But there is no netscape.public.mozilla.politics group yet, so I guess this is the place for this. :) See bug 127495, Need newsgroup for off-topic postings. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127495 :-) I'm largely in agreement with Bamm: U. S. foreign policy /and/ the IMF have done a wonderful job of keeping Third World countries in the Third World. Hell, they've even /created/ Third World countries (/e.g./, modern-day South Africa). And look at the lovely job they did in Nicaragua. /Et cetera/. Where do I sign my name to be on that list, too? I also am in agreement with that point. When you find the list, please add my name to it as well, will you? /Jonas
Re: Where is the installer from?
Chris Charabaruk wrote: Heh, not like that. I want to test it out on other things, other than Mozilla. It's a nice tool that could be used as an installer for other projects, open and otherwise. And I was under the understanding that the usual CVS pull didn't include this. Where would this be in a pull, btw? Heh, and I know about where build IDs come from (no stork here). :) Thanks none the less! http://mozilla.org/projects/xpinstall/ http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/xpinstall/ /Jonas
Re: Mocosoft Internet Explorer 6.0 crashes
Lancer Charade wrote: WRITE IN THE SEARCH BAR OF YOUR MOZILLA MAIL NEWSGROUPS THIS: ado beith Could you stop SCREAMING AT US, please? /Jonas
Re: Compatibility issues - NS 4.77
EPPack wrote: Oh I'm sorry!! I wasn't aware of that! My apologies to the group! I will try to locate the proper ng. That would be snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator. :-) /Jonas
Re: It's official AOL+Gecko
JTK wrote: Huh. I wonder if this has any possible connection to the sudden increase in the number of showstoppers that have been getting fixed recently. Oh, what am I saying! AOL is not in any way related to Mozila! AOL is testing *Gecko* -- not Mozilla. Gecko is Mozilla's rendering engine. Gecko is the code that takes an HTML file and turns it into cool looking stuff which you see on your screen. Mozilla's UI, mail client, XUL, showstoppers, etc has *nothing* whatsoever to do with Gecko. /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: Oh, it's OK, it's only Libya, and everyone knows all Libyans are evil? I strongly disagree with this attitude. You should not discriminate against an individual based on what country they are from. If a person lives in a country that threatens the peace of other countries, then that person either should leave that country or live with the consequences of staying there. 1) That is not always an option. Some countries does not allow citizens to leave the country and will shoot you for trying. 2) Just because your country is ruled by an evil dictator, you might still love your country and not want to leave it. 3) Who is the US government to define which countries threatens the peace of other countries anyway? I think the families of the over 1,000 innocent civilians killed recently in Afghanistan by US bombs would consider the United States of America a country which threatens the peace of etc., etc. /Jonas
Re: U.S. Export Reestrictions
Peter Lairo wrote: I rather be subject to the restrictions of a democratically elected body than to the anarchy of the internet community running wild Democratically elected? The US government? Don't make me laugh. /Jonas
Re: Refresh all tabs at once?
Ed S wrote: Is there a key combination available to refresh all tabs at once? Not AFAIK, but you can rightclick a tab and say Reload All Tabs. /Jonas
Re: .9.9 - Humble impressions from an end user
Kenneth Pardue wrote: Thanks! I probably did it wrong, but just to let everyone know, I've filed two bugs in Bugzilla: Bug 130961 and Bug 131026. I hope that's what I should have done. Thank you guys very much! Here's links: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130961 http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131026 No, except for filing 130961 as a trivial bug rather than an enhancement request, you didn't do anything wrong! :-) /Jonas
Re: .9.9 - Humble impressions from an end user
Kenneth Pardue wrote: Also, when I post I'd like to mark the thread to be watched even though no replies have been made to it yet. I have no idea if it marks the message as watched or not; there is no watched icon for a message unless there have been replies! Known bug -- see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122640. /Jonas
Re: Want to give a short talk on Mozilla any ideas?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any good suggestions on what the ordinary Windows user would like about Moz? Bookmark keywords! 8-) http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html
Re: Unable to D/L
Joseph N. wrote: I can't get any response out of the ftp server to download 0.9.9, either directly to the ftp or through http. Does that mean it's busy, or is there a problem? It's just busy. Try one of the mirrors: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://mozilla.org/mirrors.html /Jonas
Re: Mozilla 100% cpu time on this page - known bug?
Holger Metzger wrote: http://www.ohrbelag.de/mozilla-bug-01.html Mozilla uses 100% cpu time on this page. Use the URL query field, Luke! http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130055 /Jonas
Re: Netscape snooping on search terms from Netscape6
JTK wrote: The source code that you are privy to doesn't. How do I know the nightlies I download are built from only the publically available source? If you really want to be sure: 1: Download the source. 2: Compile it. 3: Download a binary. 4: Notice that there is no difference between the downloaded binary and the home-compiled one. Let me rephrase that: There is no possible way for Mozilla to *secretly* contain such a feature. Sure there is: oh, we forgot to put invade_privacy.cpp on the public CVS, sorry, honest mistake! See above. ...and everyone who decides to take a look at the source to see if it contains any privacy-invading search feature. And the only people who are able to look at said source? Yep: AOL. You can take a look at it if you like. You can even compile it to see that it is in fact the source code from which the binaries available for download are built. See above... Official spelling: Open Source or open source. It is not a trademark. http://opensource.org/press_releases/certified-open-source.html It might as well be. But it isn't. /Jonas
Re: Netscape snooping on search terms from Netscape6
Christian Biesinger wrote: [AOL modified Netscape's source code to spy on users] If you really want to be sure: 1: Download the source. 2: Compile it. 3: Download a binary. 4: Notice that there is no difference between the downloaded binary and the home-compiled one. Let me point out that you should use the non-talkback enabled version for this experiment. Also, you'd need to use the exactly same compiler options as Netscape for this experiment to work. No, you should use the same compiler options as _mozilla.org_, not the same as Netscape. I was talking about Mozilla builds. If he compared it to a Netscape release, there _would_ be a difference between the downloaded binary and the home-compiled one, contrary to what I in point 4 stated should be the case for Mozilla builds. /Jonas
Re: Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: Many plugins That Communicator can use, do not work in netscape 6 or Mozilla because they use Live Connect. My understanding as stated on this very newsgroup is That liveconnect was a proprietary code that netscape used. As such W3C would not accept for inclusion in W3C standards because it was proprietary to Netscape. Read what Christian said. The W3C recommends standards for web *content*, not for plugins. Which plugin technology/API/standard mozilla.org, Netscape or Microsoft or anyone else wants to use in their browsers is completely up to them. There is no W3C recommendation. /Jonas
Re: Content Type for .css files
Jens Hatlak wrote: The problem is not the Strict mode but the URL. No matter if you use Strict or Transitional: The .css file will not be recognized if both the server sends the file with the wrong MIME type *and* a URL is specified, e.g. !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-html40-19990824/loose.dtd; Strict mode refers to Mozilla's strict standards compliance layout mode, as opposed to the backwards-compatible quirks mode. Some HTML Transitional DOCTYPEs trigger strict layout mode. http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/quirks/ /Jonas
Re: Netscape snooping on search terms from Netscape6
Jay Garcia wrote: In order to be classified as Spyware, it would have to know your personal information to associate with the search criteria as well as demographics such as where you live possibly and/or other delimiting personal information. And since this feature cannot do that it cannot be classified as Spyware. Every time you send email and/or post to a newsgroup, your IP address is readily available. I disagree. Spyware is any software that spies on what you are doing without your consent. For people with static IP adresses, an IP address could be enough to reveal personal information. We don't know what AOL does with the data it collects, but Netscape 6 certanly does qualify as _potential_ spyware. That doesn't make it any worse than MSIE, though -- type an invalid domain name and you are taken to MSN search. Who knows what MSFT does with the data they collect? So both IE and NS could potentially be spying on their users. Lucky for me that I use Mozilla. /Jonas
Re: Put the Home Button on the main toolbar
me wrote: Whose idea was it to place the home button below the main toolbar where Back, Forward, etc. are? In my humble opinion, it should be placed along side those other buttons. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89350
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Netscape Basher wrote: Which validates my statement. Do not download 6.2.1 until the next release. You are posting in the wrong newsgroup. This one is about the Mozilla project. The only reason the name begins with netscape is that Netscape was so kind to donate disk space and bandwidth for the Mozilla newsgroups. This newsgroup has nothing to do with Netscape 6. Try one of the following: snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.windows snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.unix snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.netscape6.macintosh /Jonas
Re: Put the Home Button on the main toolbar
me wrote: Dan, Thanks for the information. But, tell that to the masses that Mozilla, Netscape, and others want to find and use Gecko based browsers. Why? It's a known issue and it will be fixed. Didn't you look at the link I gave you? http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89350 /Jonas
Re: More reasons not to download Netscape 6.2.1 - wait until next release!!
Christian Biesinger wrote: And, by the way, I just went to the Opera Home Page and was unable to find a single theme there. www.opera.com -- My Opera -- Customize /Jonas
Re: Put the Home Button on the main toolbar
me wrote: I did look at the page you gave the link for. However, it looks like the issue is being swept under the carpet, from the discussion posted on that page. It doesn't appear that anything will change on this topic. Maybe not now, but at some point, it will. /Jonas
Re: Mozilla 1.0: Ready for the corporate desktop?
Netscape Basher wrote: Netscape's browser used to be light and zippy, but now it's heavy and sluggish. The current version on my computer, Netscape 6.2e Netscape 6.2 = Mozilla 0.9.4. That's looong time ago. Much has happened since then. /Jonas
Re: Netscape snooping on search terms from Netscape6
JTK wrote: I want to know too, from a Mozilla/AOL official: Does Mozilla contain any such privacy-invading features? Yes or no? The ENTIRE source code for Mozilla is available right here: http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/ So there is no possible way Mozilla can contain any such feature. If it did, everyone would know about it. That's the beauty of open source. /Jonas
Re: Netscape snooping on search terms from Netscape6
JTK wrote: I didn't ask for the source code, I asked for a statement by a Mozilla/AOL official. Sure, but they could be lying, right? The source code doesn't lie. So there is no possible way Mozilla can contain any such feature. There is *every* possible way for it to contain such a feature. Let me rephrase that: There is no possible way for Mozilla to *secretly* contain such a feature. If it did, everyone would know about it. Uh, no, only the people working on Mozilla would ...and everyone who decides to take a look at the source to see if it contains any privacy-invading search feature. That's the beauty of open source. Please spell it right: Open Source(tm). Please look up the correct spelling before incorrectly correcting a spelling which is correct. Official spelling: Open Source or open source. It is not a trademark. http://opensource.org/press_releases/certified-open-source.html I actually appreciate when people point out errors in my spelling, but only in the cases where I actually misspelled something. /Jonas
Re: 0.9.8 Minimize/restore issue
Bundy wrote: 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. The bug is marked nsbeta1+, which means that it is a must-fix for the first beta version of the next Netscape 6 release. It will be fixed soon. Adding comments such as I think this bug should be fixed ASAP only waste the developer's time -- time that he/she could have spend on fixing the bug instead. /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? I meant that you want to make spam illegal, e.g. making it a business for the police. Spam, yes. Everything, no. While I'd love to be able to talk to spammers and make them realize that what they're doing is bad, that is simply not possible given the amount of spam and the variety of languages it comes in. So yes, I'd like spam to be illegal, but only because it seems to be the only possible way of solving the problem. 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. I probably do, but I just don't seem to be able to stop arguing :-) And Now For Something Completely Different: Does anyone know the number of the bug where Moz inserts a space when you paste lines beginning with , as seen above? (If there is still someone else than Peemm and me who hasn't killed this thread ten posts ago, that is. :-) ) /Jonas
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
DeMoN LaG wrote: Holger Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:3C8714D8.9090508 @hmetzger.de, on 07 Mar 2002: People using Mozilla don't have a killfile or newsfilter. You lucky Xnews-User you. :-)) :) You can just use option 3 then, pass over anything he posts. Out of curiousity, what's the bug # for newsgroup filters? Is it marked 1.0 nsbeta+, I hope? http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10097 Untargeted, helpwanted. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Jay Garcia wrote: Does anyone know the number of the bug where Moz inserts a space when you paste lines beginning with , as seen above? Here's one: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112338 Can't find any more. Holger Metzger followed that issue quite religiously I believe. I found that myself as well, but a) it's about headers, not body text, and b) it's a dupe of an (unknown) bug which is already fixed... so that's not it. I refuse to believe that this bug is not in Bugzilla already, so I won't file it. But my queries bring up nothing. :-( /Jonas
Re: Mozilla .9.9 released for Windows
Bundy wrote: Outlook Express - easy to use kill filter Mozilla - no usenet kill filter Advantage Microsoft. You obviously find Outlook Express much better than Mozilla Mail. That's just fine, then you should use Outlook Express and be happy. :-) But may I ask you one question? If you dislike Mozilla so much, how come you waste your time in the Mozilla newsgroups? I mean, surely, you must have some better things to do with your time than hang out in a newsgroup about a program that you don't even *like*? /Jonas
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: pop-ups at nytimes.com not killed
Mark Slater wrote: There's been a bug filed on this already Couldn't find it tho :) http://bugzillamozillaorg/show_bugcgi?id=126224
Re: Look at that
Peemm wrote: It might be that I missed your point; I merely skimmed through the postings in this long thread, and probably I didn't get all the nuances Nevertheless I've got the impression that you have a very positive view on porn I wasn't talking about my own personal opinion on porn, I was saying that I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else what we are to think about some subject -- not just porn, but anything I want to form my own opinions on things, and I believe everyone else should do the same, rather than just accepting what we are told is correct and that you were unfairly mocking Philip M Jones for having (amongst other things) a very positive view on women(!) 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!!! He may be a little patronizing in his views, but I think it's more sympathetic to hold such an attitude, than your each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self outlook on the world Now I all of a sudden have an each-and-every-one-for-him-or-her-self outlook on the world? What in the world gave you that crazy idea? I am very, very far from the neo-liberalistic view that you should only care about yourself and not give a shit about others Because your view on freedom and equality implies only contractual relations between people, ie you make agreements in order to structure life Are you saying that I have no emotional relations to other people? How can you possibly get that idea just by hearing me say that I think freedom and equality are good things? Or does the word contractual have some other meaning that neither me or my English dictionary are aware of? Exactly as in a porn movie all rules should be set from the beginning; you do your fucking and you get your money, and there is no room for the unexpected And all porn movies look the same, and as a spectator you know what is going to happen - no surprises Does it turn you on? Is it an expression of freedom? No, I wouldn't call it an expression of freedom, but I'm sure some people would And I will continue to defend their right to create pornography if they want to Some people are offended by porn, true, but there are also people who are offended by seeing the word fuck, a word which I notice you use So if we ban pornography, shouldn't we also ban the word fuck? The problem with banning things because people find them offensive is that you will end up banning _everything_ You've got it all mixed up, I'm afraid I am not against freedom or equality From where did you get that idea? You are defending Phillip M Jones though he repeatedly makes sexist statements Sexism and equality does not play well together /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Peemm 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 Are you saying that I have no emotional relations to other people? How can you possibly get that idea just by hearing me say that I think freedom and equality are good things? Or does the word contractual have some other meaning that neither me or my English dictionary are aware of? No, I'm not saying that I don't know you that well 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? 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? 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 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 I don't believe in calling for the police every time someone does something bad I agree with you You've got it all mixed up, I'm afraid I am not against freedom or equality From where did you get that idea? You are defending Phillip M Jones though he repeatedly makes sexist statements Sexism and equality does not play well together Again,
Re: Look at that
Peter Lairo wrote: Jonas Jørgensen wrote: Pornography is nothing you get turned on by. Peter, Could you please be a bit more careful with your reply cutting in the future? You make it look like I wrote the above sentence, which I did not. Thanks. /Jonas
Re: Can't start Mozilla anymore
Timothy A Johnson wrote: This got Mozilla to start again, however, I still can't get to any of the mail folders I didn't remove (through the preferences GUI) BTW, I'm using WinXP If anyone can give me a pointer to how to get my mail folders back, I'd certainly appreciate it You could try copying the contents of the Mail folder in your old profile directory to your new one /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Peemm wrote: Sorry, Jonas, but I have skimmed through all the postings, and even though I no longer believe in Phillip M Jones' chivalry, I must say that he understands something you and your friend DeMoN LaG don't Pornography is nothing you get turned on by Porn is a substitute for real life You might as well use heroine And the producers of porn don't care about your pleasure; they want to get money - YOUR money! This is the offensive part You are dealing with a kind of robber here - not just a spammer You are missing my point I wasn't debating whether porn is a good thing or a bad thing, I was saying that I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to tell someone else what they are to think about porn If person A likes porn and person B doesn't, I don't see why person B should be allowed to prevent person A from viewing porn, nor do I see why person A should be allowed to force person B to view porn Generally, I don't like the idea of some people telling others what they should think or do -- I consider it oppressive We should all be free to think what we want, and we should all be equal so that noone gets to control other people I really don't understand what it is that makes some people, such as yourself, be against things such as freedom and equality Regarding heroin: There are thousands of people who's lives have been completely ruined because of heroin You can objectively say that heroine destroys people Only subjectively can you say the same about pornography /Jonas
Re: Memory Leaks in Mozilla
Parish wrote: What I wanna know is, how does he know your name is Gary, JTK? ;-) See http://wwwgooglecom/search?q=site:wwwgeocrawlercom+jtk+gary+OR+sicklehl=dastart=0sa=Nfilter=0 Oh, HIM!! What, you know him from somewhere? Under his real name, I mean? /Jonas
Re: Memory Leaks in Mozilla
Parish wrote: What I wanna know is, how does he know your name is Gary, JTK? ;-) See http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.geocrawler.com+jtk+gary+OR+sicklehl=dastart=0sa=Nfilter=0. /Jonas
Re: A non-porn related question
D. Alvarado wrote: resource://index.html should work THanks, but sadly, after adding this line to my prefs.js file user_pref(browser.startup.homepage, resource://index.html); the page still wouldn't display. - Dave This will do it: resource://resource/index.html /Jonas
Re: Marc Andreessen
Sören Kuklau wrote: Well... whatever happened to him? He was - at least for the media - kind of the world wide web pioneer. As far as I know, he left Netscape after the AOL buyout to found a new company... what happened afterwards? Is he still into Internet at all? http://kontiki.com/company/advisors_f.shtml#marc /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Parish wrote: Its one thing to view art, its another to have to deal with pornography. What we are talking about is out, and out porn. I don't understand what you mean. Did you mean to write only or am I just unfamiliar with this usage of the word out? The comma shouldn't be there. The expression out and out means 100%, pure, unadulterated. So, ...are talking about is 100%, pure, unadulterated porn. Ah, I see. I didn't know that. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: If a person, male or female, wants to be a porn actor, what right does anybody else have to prevent them from doing so? It's their choice. They can do what they want with their lives, just as you and I can do whatever we want with our lives. 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. Ah, but now you are not talking about pornography, you are talking about manipulation and tricking people in to doing things. That's different. I believe that, generally, a person should be allowed to do whatever [s]he wants to unless it in some way harms other people. Pornography does *not* harm anyone, since those who are offended by it or are simply not interested in viewing it can simply choose not to do so. And to answer your question, no, I honestly do not see how it is oppressive to women in general that some persons choose to create pornography. Offending, sure, but oppressing? How? If you don't want to view it, no problem, don't view it. It's that simple. I don't wish to view it. And I am sure that, it was not the intent of the group to be the purveyor of Porn (At least I hope not). I think you misunderstood me. I would very much like to see the spam mails in this group disappear, both those about porn and those about mortgages. But I was replying to this: Also You don't mean to tell me that demeaning acts of pornography is not oppressive to women? So my statement still stands. Like i said I believe some of you want it to continue just to get your jollies. Ah, the AOLTW-Netscape-Mozilla-China-Communism-Pornstar conspiracy theory. Nice! ;-) No I didn't say that, It just seems there have been complaints - not just from me - about it, and nothing has been done to relieve it. Has nothing to do with AOLTW, Netscape, Mozilla, China, Communism. It was just a joke. We have a person in this newsgroup who likes to talk about his conspiracy theory of how the communist AOLTW-Netscape wants to make Mozilla please China. I found your suggestion that spam filters are not being installed because some people actually *like* spam almost as ridiculous as that theory. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: If a person, male or female, wants to be a porn actor, what right does anybody else have to prevent them from doing so? It's their choice. They can do what they want with their lives, just as you and I can do whatever we want with our lives. 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. Sorry for replying to the same message twice, but I forgot to add that I consider it extremely sexist of you to say that females might be tricked into doing things. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: If you discontinue the Mail list deal and place Mozilla on a Secure News server you'd only something like that maybe once every two or three years instead once every two or three post. The spam filter bug (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63735) is blocked by the general news hierarchy reorganization bug (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62228). Honestly I believe its being tolerated so some of you can get your jollies. You'd better clean it up soon though. I have been promoting these news groups for people to Lurk in to learn more about N6/ Moz. And a good part of them are women. I don't understand what you mean. Why is it worse for a woman to see a spam message than for a man? /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Sören Kuklau wrote: I don't understand what you mean. Why is it worse for a woman to see a spam message than for a man? Two words: Porn mail. This is usually directed men. Women might consider it quite disturbing, and I could understand that. Some women find porn mail offending, some women don't. The same applies to men. But Phillip suggested that it is, for some reason, worse for a woman who finds porn mail offending to see a porn mail than it is for a man who finds porn mail offending, and that just strikes me as incredibly 19th-century-like. As Kryptolus said, Drop the 'manly' act. This is how opression of women worked in the first place.. /Jonas
Re: Speaking of never removing the netscape....
JTK wrote: Looking at Bugzilla Bug 62228 (a list of people asking when is the 'netscape.' going to be removed from the newsgroup names and being completely ignored), I run across this: --- Additional Comment #38 From Dawn Endico 2001-07-17 12:27 --- [...] In the mean time, I figured out how to cancel articles (it can only be done from inside the netscape firewall) and i've been deleting a bunch of stuff one at a time by hand. Suboptimal, but better than nothing. i've been deleting a bunch of stuff one at a time by hand. Um, I don't think the proposed reorg mentioned anything about deleting people's articles. She is talking about spam messages. The automatic spam filter (which will presumably block all posts where subject or sender contains penis, mortgage, insurance, 4PlayMail, and - hopefully - JTK) cannot be installed before the newsgroup reorganization is done, so she has do delete spam manually. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote: Kryptolus wrote: You know. He probably believes it's his job as a man to protect the women of this planet from all the dirt. Don't forget to keep the women inside the house. You never know what bad things can happen to them in the real world!! Any case. Drop the 'manly' act. This is how opression of women worked in the first place. Yes I do if there is any chivalry left in the world. There is no opression about it. It offends me as well, And no I think women can go anywhere and do anything they want so long they are Physically able to the do the job. You mean that you believe that everyone is equal? That I can agree with. Its one thing to view art, its another to have to deal with pornography. What we are talking about is out, and out porn. I don't understand what you mean. Did you mean to write only or am I just unfamiliar with this usage of the word out? Also You don't mean to tell me that demeaning acts of pornography is not oppressive to women? If a person, male or female, wants to be a porn actor, what right does anybody else have to prevent them from doing so? It's their choice. They can do what they want with their lives, just as you and I can do whatever we want with our lives. I believe that, generally, a person should be allowed to do whatever [s]he wants to unless it in some way harms other people. Pornography does *not* harm anyone, since those who are offended by it or are simply not interested in viewing it can simply choose not to do so. And to answer your question, no, I honestly do not see how it is oppressive to women in general that some persons choose to create pornography. Offending, sure, but oppressing? How? If you don't want to view it, no problem, don't view it. It's that simple. I wouldn't be comfortable with some authority telling us that what is morally acceptable and what is not. How would we know that that authority would not make mistakes? What if that authority made a decision with which I did not agree? What if it made a decision with which *you* did not agree? We have this nice thing called free speech, you know. Ever heard of it? I don't see why it shouldn't apply to pornography as well. [Boy, we really need a netscape.public.mozilla.off-topic... or netscape.public.mozilla.bad-attitude, even :) ] Like i said I believe some of you want it to continue just to get your jollies. Ah, the AOLTW-Netscape-Mozilla-China-Communism-Pornstar conspiracy theory. Nice! ;-) /Jonas
Re: Look at that
DeMoN LaG wrote: Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote: 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? Clearly, at least porn actresses do not find it offending, so what you are saying, that pornography is offensive to women but not to men, is plain wrong. It is offensive to some women and to some men, and it is not offensive to other. If there is anything in this world which is truly oppressive to women, it is not pornography - it is attitudes like yours. Um, two of my female friends don't have anything against pornography, one of them is actually turned on by it. Cool friends! ;-) Most of the girls I know don't have anything against pornography either. Phillip C.E.T. Jones' opinions is from a time when men was considered superior to women. /Jonas
Re: Look at that
Jonas Jørgensen wrote: I wouldn't be comfortable with some authority telling us that what is morally acceptable and what is not. How would we know that that authority would not make mistakes? What if that authority made a decision with which I did not agree? What if it made a decision with which *you* did not agree? We have this nice thing called free speech, you know. Ever heard of it? I don't see why it shouldn't apply to pornography as well. [Boy, we really need a netscape.public.mozilla.off-topic... or netscape.public.mozilla.bad-attitude, even :) ] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=127495 filed. /Jonas
Re: Wish - key bindings for switching tabs
Christian Klukas wrote: One thing I miss too, I would like to oben new tab-pages in the background and not in the foreground. That would be great too. Preferences|Navigator|Tabbed Browsing|Load links in background? /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Perhaps you should change the Content-Type sent for http://www.gerv.net/software/patch-maker/pm. The current one, text/plain, makes Mozilla on Windows add a .txt extension when saving it. /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Note: version 2 of Patch Maker requires a new format to the chromelist.txt file. Therefore, chromelist.txt will need to be obtained from this page until bug 125588 is fixed. and the links to chromelist.txt should be removed. How do I keep working on my patch using a new nightly build? Easy. Execute pmd in the old chrome directory. Change to the new one. Unjar your chrome by executing pmn, and then execute pmp and If you execute a Patch Maker command in a chrome directory where the chrome is still jarred up in archives, Patch Maker will ignore the command and unjar the chrome. You need it unjarred to edit it or apply patches to it. :-) You can do this manually with pmn.: pmn should be changed to pmuj. /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Gervase Markham wrote: Perhaps you should change the Content-Type sent for http://www.gerv.net/software/patch-maker/pm. The current one, text/plain, makes Mozilla on Windows add a .txt extension when saving it. Hmm. I want it to display inline for people; I like that behaviour. What type would you suggest? I have no idea, but Mozilla on Windows currently shows pm.txt as default filename when trying to save it, which is Not Good(tm). I already saw one person in these newsgroups who accepted the default filename and couldn't get pm to work afterwards... /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Gervase Markham wrote: pmn should be changed to pmuj. Yeah, the docs need a review :-) If anyone wants to sanity-check them and send me a patch, I'd be extremely grateful. I'm a bit snowed under at the moment. I'll do it. Patch will arrive soonishly. /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Gervase Markham wrote: Fixed in 2.0beta2, released soonish. BTW, will beta 2 have a default datadir of my $datadir = File::Spec-catdir(File::Spec-updir(), File::Spec-updir(), pm); (like v0.7x) instead of my $datadir = /home/gerv/pm; ? I sure hope so... /Jonas
Re: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released
Gervase Markham wrote: BTW, will beta 2 have a default datadir of my $datadir = File::Spec-catdir(File::Spec-updir(), File::Spec-updir(), pm); No. Why is editing the path a problem? It isn't.
chromelist.txt broken on Win32 (was: Patch Maker version 2.0beta1 released)
Here is a random line from the chromelist.txt in the latest Win32 build: en-US\locale\en-US\navigator\viewSource.dtd (xpfe/browser/resources\locale\en-US\viewSource.dtd) What are those backslashes in the second path doing there? Patch Maker doesn't like them - it gives me errors about being unable to find the CVS equivelent whenever I try to add a file! /Jonas
