Re: Annoying hang in SM after forwarding an email under Win 8.1

[Daniel]

On 06/03/15 07:27, Dick Hoffman wrote:

On 3/5/2015 4:14 AM, Daniel wrote:

On 5/03/2015 3:44 AM, Dick Hoffman wrote:

On 3/4/2015 6:06 AM, Daniel wrote:

On 04/03/15 09:05, Dick Hoffman wrote:





Tried forwarding in Safe Mode and the same thing happened on the
second
email I forwarded.


No, not forward but switch SM to Safe Mode. Have a look at
Help->Restart
with Add-ons disabled.


Sorry my last post wasn't clear. Yes, I started SM in Safe Mode, went to
Mail, and forwarded two emails to my wife. The first went with no
problem, the second experienced the delay I described in my original
post.


O.K., when did the delay occur?? Was it the same e-mail (and attachment)
that you forwarded both times?? Did SM show the little "Sending Mail"
screen for a long time in the second instance?? Or did the little screen
disappear in about the same time, just that the "outside world" took its
time delivering the second e-mail to your wife??


No, it was not the same email and no attachments were involved. The
delay starts when the "sending Mail" little screen appears. The little
screen says "Mail sent successfully", which is true. The little screen
persists for the entire 90 seconds that the delay occurs, only going
away when the little blue arrow is posted to the entry in the inbox list
corresponding to the forwarded email.


Thank you.

Could you have a look in your SM Sent folder to determine the size of 
the two e-mails sent??


You may need to enable the "Size" column in your "sent" folder .. if so, 
click the squiggly line symbol at the right hand end of the column 
headers in the "Threads" Pane and select "Size".


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909

or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Annoying hang in SM after forwarding an email under Win 8.1

[Dick Hoffman]

On 3/6/2015 3:48 AM, Daniel wrote:

On 06/03/15 07:27, Dick Hoffman wrote:

On 3/5/2015 4:14 AM, Daniel wrote:

On 5/03/2015 3:44 AM, Dick Hoffman wrote:

On 3/4/2015 6:06 AM, Daniel wrote:

On 04/03/15 09:05, Dick Hoffman wrote:





Tried forwarding in Safe Mode and the same thing happened on the
second
email I forwarded.


No, not forward but switch SM to Safe Mode. Have a look at
Help->Restart
with Add-ons disabled.


Sorry my last post wasn't clear. Yes, I started SM in Safe Mode,
went to
Mail, and forwarded two emails to my wife. The first went with no
problem, the second experienced the delay I described in my original
post.


O.K., when did the delay occur?? Was it the same e-mail (and attachment)
that you forwarded both times?? Did SM show the little "Sending Mail"
screen for a long time in the second instance?? Or did the little screen
disappear in about the same time, just that the "outside world" took its
time delivering the second e-mail to your wife??


No, it was not the same email and no attachments were involved. The
delay starts when the "sending Mail" little screen appears. The little
screen says "Mail sent successfully", which is true. The little screen
persists for the entire 90 seconds that the delay occurs, only going
away when the little blue arrow is posted to the entry in the inbox list
corresponding to the forwarded email.


Thank you.

Could you have a look in your SM Sent folder to determine the size of
the two e-mails sent??

You may need to enable the "Size" column in your "sent" folder .. if so,
click the squiggly line symbol at the right hand end of the column
headers in the "Threads" Pane and select "Size".

The emails from yesterday were gone so I repeated the exercise by 
forwarding two emails to my wife again. The first was 43.2 KB and was 
forwarded with no delay. The second was 51.4 KB and resulted in a delay 
of about 80 seconds before the little status screen went away and the 
blue arrow was posted to show it was forwarded. Neither had attachments, 
both were in HTML not plain text.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[Rick Merrill]

Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:

On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

According to
,
Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.

Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?


The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.

I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the death 
of Fx.
I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the reason 
that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Video Problem

[Tom Pamin]

I'm again having problems playing videos on this site. It plays the ad 
before the videos, but not the video. Says file is corrupted or video is 
not supported. The videos do play OK with IE.


You can test it by choosing any video on this page.

I also am now getting a popup every time I open the web site, even with 
adblock plus enabled.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Video Problem

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Tom Pamin wrote:


I'm again having problems playing videos on this site. It plays the ad
before the videos, but not the video. Says file is corrupted or video is
not supported. The videos do play OK with IE.

You can test it by choosing any video on this page.

I also am now getting a popup every time I open the web site, even with
adblock plus enabled.


Uh, which site? Which page?

Sorry, my copy of SeaMonkey didn't come with the mind-reading extension.

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[David E. Ross]

On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:
> Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:
>> On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>>> According to
>>> ,
>>> Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
>>> Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
>>> installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.
>>>
>>> Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?
>>>
>> The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.
>>
>> I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the 
>> death of Fx.
> I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the 
> reason 
> that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.
> 

Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
 I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software.  I p[roved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.

I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.

-- 
David E. Ross

I am sticking with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 until saved passwords can
be used when autocomplete=off.  See
.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[Paul B. Gallagher]

David E. Ross wrote:


Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
  I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software.  I proved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.

I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.


Very impressive. So why is this protection "unwanted"?

In my admittedly lesser experience, most users prefer safety over risk, 
other things being equal.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[WaltS48]

On 03/06/2015 07:47 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:

Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:

On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

According to
,
Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.

Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?


The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.

I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the death 
of Fx.

I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the 
reason
that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.



Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
  I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software.  I p[roved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.

I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.




How is a developer imposing unwanted protection, when they are 
automatically scanning something an extension developer created, that 
may contain malicious code that will harm your system, then signing it 
if it passes review that it does not contain any malicious code and 
allowing it to be installed in your Firefox?


--
Kubuntu 14.10 | KDE 4.14.1 | Thunderbird 38.0a2(Earlybird)
[Coexist - Understanding Across Divides](https://www.coexist.org/)
Proofreader wanted - apply online. ;)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

RETR command did not succeed. Yahoo

[SamuelS]

Hello all,

Can anyone shed light on RETR command when trying to dl email messages 
to SM from yahoo?


"The RETR command did not succeed. Error retrieving a message. Mail 
server pop.mail.yahoo.com responded: inactivity timeout.


I Am running SM 2.32.1 in W 8.1, I have separate folders on my D drive 
for each folder. Crazy, but the only way I could figure out that SM 
would permit me to use that drive.. I had to re-install w 8.1 and start 
from scratch in terms of reloading programs etc...


At any rate, SM freezes when dl mail and will not dl mail beyond message 
2756 without returning the above message and a time out too...


I have also increased the time out to 300 seconds. What Am I not doing 
correctly for this to work, again? The other Yahoo accounts dl fine.


I have tried g'ling the error message to find a solution and have come 
up empty, for the most part and have tried implementing suggestions 
found to no avail.


Any suggestions or guides for this?

TIA - bo1953
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[WaltS48]

On 03/06/2015 10:17 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/6/2015 5:19 PM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 03/06/2015 07:47 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:

Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:

On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

According to
,
Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.

Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?


The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.

I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the death 
of Fx.

I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the 
reason
that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.



Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
   I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software.  I p[roved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.

I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.




How is a developer imposing unwanted protection, when they are
automatically scanning something an extension developer created, that
may contain malicious code that will harm your system, then signing it
if it passes review that it does not contain any malicious code and
allowing it to be installed in your Firefox?



I have extensions that do exactly what I want.  They were NOT obtained
from addons.mozilla.org (AMO), primarily because their developers do not
want to deal with AMO's bureaucracy.  The blocking of unsigned
extensions will block me from obtaining future new extensions and
extension updates, without any option to override the blocking.  This is
why the "protection" is unwanted.




You are just one user out of millions.

--
Kubuntu 14.10 | KDE 4.14.1 | Thunderbird 38.0a2(Earlybird)
[Coexist - Understanding Across Divides](https://www.coexist.org/)
Proofreader wanted - apply online. ;)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[David E. Ross]

On 3/6/2015 5:19 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 07:47 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:
>>> Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:
 On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> According to
> ,
> Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
> Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
> installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.
>
> Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?
>
 The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.

 I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the 
 death of Fx.
>>> I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is 
>>> the reason
>>> that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.
>>>
>>
>> Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
>> and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
>> for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
>>   I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
>> a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
>> command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
>> hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
>> their software.  I p[roved that a new software package failed to
>> implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
>> months while the package was rewritten.
>>
>> I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
>> my career imposing unwanted protection on me.
>>
> 
> 
> How is a developer imposing unwanted protection, when they are 
> automatically scanning something an extension developer created, that 
> may contain malicious code that will harm your system, then signing it 
> if it passes review that it does not contain any malicious code and 
> allowing it to be installed in your Firefox?
> 

I have extensions that do exactly what I want.  They were NOT obtained
from addons.mozilla.org (AMO), primarily because their developers do not
want to deal with AMO's bureaucracy.  The blocking of unsigned
extensions will block me from obtaining future new extensions and
extension updates, without any option to override the blocking.  This is
why the "protection" is unwanted.

-- 
David E. Ross

I am sticking with SeaMonkey 2.26.1 until saved passwords can
be used when autocomplete=off.  See
.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Restricting Extensions

[Alex Beauroy]

On 07/03/2015 01:47, David E. Ross wrote:

On 3/6/2015 10:42 AM, Rick Merrill wrote:

Desiree wrote on 02/13/2015 1:59 AM:

On 2/12/2015 9:05 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

According to
,
Firefox will no longer allow extensions to be installed unless signed by
Mozilla.  Users will have NO option to allow an unsigned extension to be
installed.  That is, signatures by Mozilla will be mandatory.

Will this also be implemented in SeaMonkey?


The blog states this will NOT be implemented for SeaMonkey.

I stunned that Mozilla is doing this.  This is political and could be the death 
of Fx.

I can understand that some users love extensions, but I think security is the 
reason
that this is being done, and so I am much in favor of it.



Before I retired, I had a 41-year career in software, first programming
and then testing.  I developed approximately 25% of the specifications
for a military software project that eventually cost about $400,000,000.
  I was called out of the shower (at home, getting ready for bed) to take
a phone call from a satellite launch facility to explain how to use the
command and control software for a space satellite that was within a
hour of launch.  I taught end-users about the mathematics underlying
their software.  I p[roved that a new software package failed to
implement the customer's requirements, delaying deployment about 6
months while the package was rewritten.

I do not need or want some developer who was not yet born when I started
my career imposing unwanted protection on me.


Wow!!! You have a very impressive CV!!!
I just wanted to know if you have been using the theme "Orthodox"
which does not work with SeaMonkey 2.32.1, but certainly works with 2.26.1
I love it!!
I don't have your programming and testing skills, therefore I remains 
trusting

Mozilla for security!!
Best Regards
@lex
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey