Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
On Monday, 18 August 2014 19:02:08 UTC+10, Patrick Turner wrote: I did post recently about how to set text size in SM so other browsers like Chrome got it right. By trial and error I managed to fiddle with sizes so this occurs. Thanks to those who commented, and suggested I used other WYSIWYG composer programs. None worked properly, and had bigger bothers than SM. Thanks anyway.Even Front Page is more awkward to use than SM. AL I WANT IS SIMPLE PLEASE. Originally, I asked for a simple fix because of suspected SM problems. I suspected my monitor and card had a problem, but I think Ive ruled this out today. I cannot get my SM version 2.26 to work very well. So, I learnt more how to use Front Page and then figured I didn't need that because I could simply type up a page in Microsoft Word, and save the page as a web page just as I always have. I can more easily adjust sizes of images AND text so that when viewed in Firefox it looks OK using zoom at 100%. In Chrome text and pics look small but adjusting zoom to +110% makes it look right, about same as Firefox. Its a vast improvement on SeaMonkey. Much that Front Page offers is explained in a 46 page how-to-do about websites which it is presumed that the webmaster wants to generate income from a website. I know that no matter how good a website is about tube based audio, there's no money to be made unless you sell amps cheaper than made in China. OK, I just want a website to contain a vast amount of info on how to use vacuum tubes. Its an intellectual persuit, not commercial. So, turns out MS word is fine. There's only one thing I cannot find how-to-do in MS word and that change the page background colour from glary WHITE to a parchment shade. Thanks for all your input. I am not a man to stop trying to teach myself stuff while waiting for simply understood doable help. I might wait ages. Someone emailed me to say I couldn't ever get different browsers to display my pages identically unless I had far more knowledge about html coding. Yeah sure, I'm one of the dumbest dumbos who's ever lived. But since 2001, my webpages have looked virtually identical in Netscape, SeaMonkey, Firefox and Chrome. Difficulties have only been with recent SeaMonkey. The whole idea of WYSIWYG is to allow SIMPLE minded ppl like myself to make a SIMPLE website containing far more useful info about tube amps than the many slick commercial websites which seem to me to leave out all useful info and all they want is your money after conning you with good looking web graphics. Keep well, and if that's impossible, try at least to stay sane, Patrick Turner. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Patrick Turner wrote: The whole idea of WYSIWYG is to allow SIMPLE minded ppl like myself to make a SIMPLE website The whole idea of WYSIWYG is to save you having to think. Fine, if that is what you want, then go with it. For myself, if there is no intellectual value in an exercise, then it is pointless. Each to his own. Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
On 8/21/14 5:01 PM, Patrick Turner wrote: On Monday, 18 August 2014 19:02:08 UTC+10, Patrick Turner wrote: I did post recently about how to set text size in SM so other browsers like Chrome got it right. By trial and error I managed to fiddle with sizes so this occurs. Thanks to those who commented, and suggested I used other WYSIWYG composer programs. None worked properly, and had bigger bothers than SM. Thanks anyway.Even Front Page is more awkward to use than SM. AL I WANT IS SIMPLE PLEASE. Originally, I asked for a simple fix because of suspected SM problems. I suspected my monitor and card had a problem, but I think Ive ruled this out today. I cannot get my SM version 2.26 to work very well. So, I learnt more how to use Front Page and then figured I didn't need that because I could simply type up a page in Microsoft Word, and save the page as a web page just as I always have. I can more easily adjust sizes of images AND text so that when viewed in Firefox it looks OK using zoom at 100%. In Chrome text and pics look small but adjusting zoom to +110% makes it look right, about same as Firefox. Its a vast improvement on SeaMonkey. Much that Front Page offers is explained in a 46 page how-to-do about websites which it is presumed that the webmaster wants to generate income from a website. I know that no matter how good a website is about tube based audio, there's no money to be made unless you sell amps cheaper than made in China. OK, I just want a website to contain a vast amount of info on how to use vacuum tubes. Its an intellectual persuit, not commercial. So, turns out MS word is fine. There's only one thing I cannot find how-to-do in MS word and that change the page background colour from glary WHITE to a parchment shade. Thanks for all your input. I am not a man to stop trying to teach myself stuff while waiting for simply understood doable help. I might wait ages. Someone emailed me to say I couldn't ever get different browsers to display my pages identically unless I had far more knowledge about html coding. Yeah sure, I'm one of the dumbest dumbos who's ever lived. But since 2001, my webpages have looked virtually identical in Netscape, SeaMonkey, Firefox and Chrome. Difficulties have only been with recent SeaMonkey. The whole idea of WYSIWYG is to allow SIMPLE minded ppl like myself to make a SIMPLE website containing far more useful info about tube amps than the many slick commercial websites which seem to me to leave out all useful info and all they want is your money after conning you with good looking web graphics. Keep well, and if that's impossible, try at least to stay sane, Patrick Turner. While fonts and the like will always be somewhat different from browser to browser, plain ol' HTML code displays images _identically_ in all browsers. I repeat (for the 3rd time at least): If you're having issues with browsers displaying images at different sizes, it's a byproduct of your browser settings, _not_ of your Composer/Front Page/Dreamweaver, etc. settings. Somehow, however, I suspect this will fail to compute. Your site images all look the same in SeaMonkey, Safari and Firefox. All of them. On every page I dared to open. Not a single, solitary image looked even remotely different in any of the three browsers. NOT A SINGLE ONE. This is not an HTML, CSS, Composer or other design issue. It simply isn't. The problem you keep describing is not the problem you're experiencing. Honest. Your browser DISPLAY settings are the problem. My last comment on the matter. -- / // Trane Francks tr...@tranefrancks.com Tokyo, Japan // Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
On 21/08/14 20:45, Trane Francks wrote: On 8/21/14 5:01 PM, Patrick Turner wrote: On Monday, 18 August 2014 19:02:08 UTC+10, Patrick Turner wrote: I did post recently about how to set text size in SM so other browsers like Chrome got it right. By trial and error I managed to fiddle with sizes so this occurs. Thanks to those who commented, and suggested I used other WYSIWYG composer programs. None worked properly, and had bigger bothers than SM. Thanks anyway.Even Front Page is more awkward to use than SM. AL I WANT IS SIMPLE PLEASE. Originally, I asked for a simple fix because of suspected SM problems. I suspected my monitor and card had a problem, but I think Ive ruled this out today. I cannot get my SM version 2.26 to work very well. So, I learnt more how to use Front Page and then figured I didn't need that because I could simply type up a page in Microsoft Word, and save the page as a web page just as I always have. I can more easily adjust sizes of images AND text so that when viewed in Firefox it looks OK using zoom at 100%. In Chrome text and pics look small but adjusting zoom to +110% makes it look right, about same as Firefox. Its a vast improvement on SeaMonkey. Much that Front Page offers is explained in a 46 page how-to-do about websites which it is presumed that the webmaster wants to generate income from a website. I know that no matter how good a website is about tube based audio, there's no money to be made unless you sell amps cheaper than made in China. OK, I just want a website to contain a vast amount of info on how to use vacuum tubes. Its an intellectual persuit, not commercial. So, turns out MS word is fine. There's only one thing I cannot find how-to-do in MS word and that change the page background colour from glary WHITE to a parchment shade. Thanks for all your input. I am not a man to stop trying to teach myself stuff while waiting for simply understood doable help. I might wait ages. Someone emailed me to say I couldn't ever get different browsers to display my pages identically unless I had far more knowledge about html coding. Yeah sure, I'm one of the dumbest dumbos who's ever lived. But since 2001, my webpages have looked virtually identical in Netscape, SeaMonkey, Firefox and Chrome. Difficulties have only been with recent SeaMonkey. The whole idea of WYSIWYG is to allow SIMPLE minded ppl like myself to make a SIMPLE website containing far more useful info about tube amps than the many slick commercial websites which seem to me to leave out all useful info and all they want is your money after conning you with good looking web graphics. Keep well, and if that's impossible, try at least to stay sane, Patrick Turner. While fonts and the like will always be somewhat different from browser to browser, plain ol' HTML code displays images _identically_ in all browsers. I repeat (for the 3rd time at least): If you're having issues with browsers displaying images at different sizes, it's a byproduct of your browser settings, _not_ of your Composer/Front Page/Dreamweaver, etc. settings. Somehow, however, I suspect this will fail to compute. Your site images all look the same in SeaMonkey, Safari and Firefox. All of them. On every page I dared to open. Not a single, solitary image looked even remotely different in any of the three browsers. NOT A SINGLE ONE. This is not an HTML, CSS, Composer or other design issue. It simply isn't. The problem you keep describing is not the problem you're experiencing. Honest. Your browser DISPLAY settings are the problem. My last comment on the matter. I can't say I noticed, previously, where Patrick might have given us the clue Quote So, turns out MS word is fine. End Quote. Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? -- Daniel User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26 Build identifier: 20140415200419 or User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26 Build identifier: 20140408191805 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Daniel wrote: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Back in the day, MS Word was always listed as a terrible web page generator, coming in behind only MS Publisher and MS Excel for the honors of worst possible tool. I doubt it has improved. All those MS products fill the HTML with bloated proprietary junk so they can restore the document to their native format. In other words, use something else. -- -bts -This space for rent, but the price is high ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Status of Upcoming Release(s)
Hey Everyone! So I wanted to update you on the state of things. - There will be no 2.28 release, the efforts to do so would only get in the way of timing for 2.29 and at this point its easiest to just move forward and try to get 2.29 out on time, or close to its initial planned date. - We are working on builds for 2.29b1 *now*. We have Source (tarball generation), and Mac OSX working. We have a minor problem with windows, (patch ready) and are hoping to have linux wrapped up by monday the latest. - This release will NOT have any l10n changes since our 2.26.1 release (well, it has new english strings, but no translations). This is primarily because we wanted to test our overall build process without risking l10n issues internally. - The release is primarily a is our build system working test, and less of a is this beta good test, though the latter will still be of a big help. - There will be a 2.29 Beta 2. - About a week after we ship beta 2, we hope to have a 2.29 final out. - 2.30 should be able to ship with automated linux64 updates and l10n! Any questions, reply or see me in irc.m.o/ #seamonkey ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Daniel wrote: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Back in the day, MS Word was always listed as a terrible web page generator, coming in behind only MS Publisher and MS Excel for the honors of worst possible tool. I doubt it has improved. All those MS products fill the HTML with bloated proprietary junk so they can restore the document to their native format. In other words, use something else. Still is. One of the effects of this is that if you copy content from something produced in Word, and paste into anything else that supports HTML content, then you get all the useless Microsoft HTML code (including unused style and font definitions) in the target document. This is especially noticeable if somebody copies content from a Word document into an email message that has HTML formatting enabled. I've seen one paragraph messages that are nearly 20K. Microsoft's intent is that you can use Word as web content editor, publish to the web, and then be able to copy from the web and edit again in Word with no loss of fidelity or content. It's one of the things that works reasonably well in a Microsoft-centric corporate environment (including Microsoft servers and users using Internet Explorer -- e.g., a corporate Intranet), but is considerably less effective for the general public, especially when a lot of the tools used don't have a Microsoft logo in the startup splash screen. Smith ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Status of Upcoming Release(s)
Roping in the l10n teams on this status of SeaMonkey. TLDR; for l10n: 2.29 Beta 1 is coming, no l10n signoff. 2.29 Beta 2 is coming therafter which will have new l10n signoffs needed (based on current beta branches) Aurora/Trunk l10n probably still busted, and will be our top priority after the 2.29 release and 2.30b1. ~Justin Wood (Callek) On 8/21/2014 12:07 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Hey Everyone! So I wanted to update you on the state of things. - There will be no 2.28 release, the efforts to do so would only get in the way of timing for 2.29 and at this point its easiest to just move forward and try to get 2.29 out on time, or close to its initial planned date. - We are working on builds for 2.29b1 *now*. We have Source (tarball generation), and Mac OSX working. We have a minor problem with windows, (patch ready) and are hoping to have linux wrapped up by monday the latest. - This release will NOT have any l10n changes since our 2.26.1 release (well, it has new english strings, but no translations). This is primarily because we wanted to test our overall build process without risking l10n issues internally. - The release is primarily a is our build system working test, and less of a is this beta good test, though the latter will still be of a big help. - There will be a 2.29 Beta 2. - About a week after we ship beta 2, we hope to have a 2.29 final out. - 2.30 should be able to ship with automated linux64 updates and l10n! Any questions, reply or see me in irc.m.o/ #seamonkey ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Status of Upcoming Release(s)
On 8/21/2014 6:10 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Roping in the l10n teams on this status of SeaMonkey. TLDR; for l10n: 2.29 Beta 1 is coming, no l10n signoff. 2.29 Beta 2 is coming therafter which will have new l10n signoffs needed (based on current beta branches) Aurora/Trunk l10n probably still busted, and will be our top priority after the 2.29 release and 2.30b1. ~Justin Wood (Callek) On 8/21/2014 12:07 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Hey Everyone! So I wanted to update you on the state of things. - There will be no 2.28 release, the efforts to do so would only get in the way of timing for 2.29 and at this point its easiest to just move forward and try to get 2.29 out on time, or close to its initial planned date. - We are working on builds for 2.29b1 *now*. We have Source (tarball generation), and Mac OSX working. We have a minor problem with windows, (patch ready) and are hoping to have linux wrapped up by monday the latest. - This release will NOT have any l10n changes since our 2.26.1 release (well, it has new english strings, but no translations). This is primarily because we wanted to test our overall build process without risking l10n issues internally. - The release is primarily a is our build system working test, and less of a is this beta good test, though the latter will still be of a big help. - There will be a 2.29 Beta 2. - About a week after we ship beta 2, we hope to have a 2.29 final out. - 2.30 should be able to ship with automated linux64 updates and l10n! Any questions, reply or see me in irc.m.o/ #seamonkey ~Justin Wood (Callek) Great news, Justin, I suppose that following up all that there will be again nightly and aurora build too in the usual places: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-central-trunk/ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/nightly/latest-comm-aurora/ Thanks again for the great news and the good work ! dominique (France) usually a nightly tester... :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
NFN Smith pounded out : Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Daniel wrote: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Back in the day, MS Word was always listed as a terrible web page generator, coming in behind only MS Publisher and MS Excel for the honors of worst possible tool. I doubt it has improved. All those MS products fill the HTML with bloated proprietary junk so they can restore the document to their native format. In other words, use something else. Still is. One of the effects of this is that if you copy content from something produced in Word, and paste into anything else that supports HTML content, then you get all the useless Microsoft HTML code (including unused style and font definitions) in the target document. This is especially noticeable if somebody copies content from a Word document into an email message that has HTML formatting enabled. I've seen one paragraph messages that are nearly 20K. Microsoft's intent is that you can use Word as web content editor, publish to the web, and then be able to copy from the web and edit again in Word with no loss of fidelity or content. It's one of the things that works reasonably well in a Microsoft-centric corporate environment (including Microsoft servers and users using Internet Explorer -- e.g., a corporate Intranet), but is considerably less effective for the general public, especially when a lot of the tools used don't have a Microsoft logo in the startup splash screen. Smith Just for yucks I took the index.php page from one of my sites which is 4.5Kb, opened it in Word, made one line bold, saved it. It is now 22.5Kb. The original file has 81 lines. The new one is 653 lines! -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Ed Mullen wrote, On 21/08/2014 19:52: NFN Smith pounded out : Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Daniel wrote: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Back in the day, MS Word was always listed as a terrible web page generator, coming in behind only MS Publisher and MS Excel for the honors of worst possible tool. I doubt it has improved. All those MS products fill the HTML with bloated proprietary junk so they can restore the document to their native format. In other words, use something else. Still is. One of the effects of this is that if you copy content from something produced in Word, and paste into anything else that supports HTML content, then you get all the useless Microsoft HTML code (including unused style and font definitions) in the target document. This is especially noticeable if somebody copies content from a Word document into an email message that has HTML formatting enabled. I've seen one paragraph messages that are nearly 20K. Microsoft's intent is that you can use Word as web content editor, publish to the web, and then be able to copy from the web and edit again in Word with no loss of fidelity or content. It's one of the things that works reasonably well in a Microsoft-centric corporate environment (including Microsoft servers and users using Internet Explorer -- e.g., a corporate Intranet), but is considerably less effective for the general public, especially when a lot of the tools used don't have a Microsoft logo in the startup splash screen. Smith Just for yucks I took the index.php page from one of my sites which is 4.5Kb, opened it in Word, made one line bold, saved it. It is now 22.5Kb. The original file has 81 lines. The new one is 653 lines! If you are paid by the number of lines of code, you will be rich now :-) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Status of Upcoming Release(s)
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote, On 21/08/2014 18:07: Hey Everyone! - This release will NOT have any l10n changes since our 2.26.1 release (well, it has new english strings, but no translations). This is primarily because we wanted to test our overall build process without risking l10n issues internally. I use SM under Windows 7 Could we expect a final cut of: - SeaMonkey Setup 2.29.exe - seamonkey-2.29.fr.langpack.xpi with new english strings translated in seamonkey-2.29.fr.langpack.xpi ? Or should we wait for 2.30 ? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Status of Upcoming Release(s)
Thanks for all the hard work you and the other volunteers do to keep SeaMonkey up to date. Your work is much appreciated!!! Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Hey Everyone! So I wanted to update you on the state of things. - There will be no 2.28 release, the efforts to do so would only get in the way of timing for 2.29 and at this point its easiest to just move forward and try to get 2.29 out on time, or close to its initial planned date. - We are working on builds for 2.29b1 *now*. We have Source (tarball generation), and Mac OSX working. We have a minor problem with windows, (patch ready) and are hoping to have linux wrapped up by monday the latest. - This release will NOT have any l10n changes since our 2.26.1 release (well, it has new english strings, but no translations). This is primarily because we wanted to test our overall build process without risking l10n issues internally. - The release is primarily a is our build system working test, and less of a is this beta good test, though the latter will still be of a big help. - There will be a 2.29 Beta 2. - About a week after we ship beta 2, we hope to have a 2.29 final out. - 2.30 should be able to ship with automated linux64 updates and l10n! Any questions, reply or see me in irc.m.o/ #seamonkey ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Ray_Net pounded out : Ed Mullen wrote, On 21/08/2014 19:52: NFN Smith pounded out : Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: Daniel wrote: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Back in the day, MS Word was always listed as a terrible web page generator, coming in behind only MS Publisher and MS Excel for the honors of worst possible tool. I doubt it has improved. All those MS products fill the HTML with bloated proprietary junk so they can restore the document to their native format. In other words, use something else. Still is. One of the effects of this is that if you copy content from something produced in Word, and paste into anything else that supports HTML content, then you get all the useless Microsoft HTML code (including unused style and font definitions) in the target document. This is especially noticeable if somebody copies content from a Word document into an email message that has HTML formatting enabled. I've seen one paragraph messages that are nearly 20K. Microsoft's intent is that you can use Word as web content editor, publish to the web, and then be able to copy from the web and edit again in Word with no loss of fidelity or content. It's one of the things that works reasonably well in a Microsoft-centric corporate environment (including Microsoft servers and users using Internet Explorer -- e.g., a corporate Intranet), but is considerably less effective for the general public, especially when a lot of the tools used don't have a Microsoft logo in the startup splash screen. Smith Just for yucks I took the index.php page from one of my sites which is 4.5Kb, opened it in Word, made one line bold, saved it. It is now 22.5Kb. The original file has 81 lines. The new one is 653 lines! If you are paid by the number of lines of code, you will be rich now :-) Damn! Never thought of that. Perhaps that's Microsoft's plot? For such a successful and smart company they do keep doing incredibly dumb stuff. And it's not like no has ever noticed, eh? -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it. - E. B. White ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Images in SeaMonkey makes images always too big.
Interviewed by CNN on 21/08/2014 08:30, Daniel told the world: Does anyone know how well MS Word might compose an HTML file, or, to put it another way, how clean is a HTML file written in MS Word?? Not very much. It's ridiculously verbose, it doesn't use styles efficiently, it uses lots of presentational tags and styles, it doesn't even manage to be consistent in the way it applies all the presentational crap... and if you save as web page instead of web page, filtered it manages to be even WORSE, spreading all sorts of proprietary crap around. But recent versions at least commit relatively few validation errors. Making a page generated by Word 2003 validate was a job to be done only by fully certified masochists. And, by the way... the other tool mentioned was FrontPage. Which even Microsoft gave up on -- it was discontinued about eight years ago, and even back then it was widely considered to produce terrible code. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my IBM PCjr. * Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
