Re: The new Google Earth only runs on Chrome, why?

[boxfreind]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 2:02:01 AM UTC-6, Dirk Munk wrote:
> I wanted to use Google Earth yesterday, and I was surprised with the 
> announcement that there was a new Google Earth for use in a browser. The 
> announcement contained a link to https://earth.google.com/web/ , but 
> when I opened it with SeaMonkey I got this message "Aw snap! The new 
> Google Earth isn't supported by your browser yet.", and a message to try 
> it in Chrome.
> 
> Why doesn't the new Google Earth run in SeaMonkey / Firefox etc.?

Because Google has become just about as greedy and draconian as Apple now. 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[notme]

Go to http://prefbar.tuxfamily.org/ for information on how to install 
and use Prefbar.


rjkrjk wrote:

plz explain how this is done,  tks




no...@nonospam.org wrote on 9/2/18 6:00 PM:

Replying to a couple of suggestions from different responders:

Clearing my cache did not fix this.

Using the Prefbar add-on, changing my User Agent from SM to Firefox 
DID fix it. Switching 


**



back and forth between the two, it is repeatable.

Thanks for the suggestions!

John

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162 



no...@nonospam.org wrote:
Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was 
displaced to the top of the
search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search 
some of the words would
spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only 
with SM, and it

happened on every computer I tried it on.

Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back 
again. I haven't seen

this on any other website.

Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or 
Edge? Any ideas on how to

eliminate it? Thanks!

John


Google has changed a few things in the last few days.
IMO, they did initial testing a few weeks ago.
My user string does not have your problem in SM on this machine,
but the same string in FF on a different machine does what you said.
On both machines Google has eliminated the URL that bypasses their
"search help" so that now every letter I type gets sent to Google
which then suggests search words.  I hate that and their reporting home.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



--
Q: What's the quickest way to get a mailbox full of spam?
A: Post a message in any newsgroup using a real email address.

Therefore, please reply in this newsgroup. Thank you.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?

[Ray_Net]

David E. Ross wrote on 03-09-18 01:03:

On 9/2/2018 1:52 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site.

To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0

But now, some sites are too slow.

How can I disable the cache for just one site ?


I have disabled caching entirely.  Too many Web sites are generated or
modified "on the fly", through PHP, server-side includes, or scripts.
That means many cached Web pages are not current.  With a good broadband
connection, I do not notice much delay except when I encounter a Web
server with problems.


You have disabled completely the cache by going into about:config then put:
browser.cache.disk.enable to FALSE ?

Anyway, with no caching I encounter a website who is too slow now.
So It's better to not disable the cache

What about:
"Compare the page in the cache to the page on the network" set to: 
"Every time I view the page"


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

Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?

[David E. Ross]

On 9/2/2018 1:52 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
> I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site.
> 
> To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0
> 
> But now, some sites are too slow.
> 
> How can I disable the cache for just one site ?
> 

I have disabled caching entirely.  Too many Web sites are generated or
modified "on the fly", through PHP, server-side includes, or scripts.
That means many cached Web pages are not current.  With a good broadband
connection, I do not notice much delay except when I encounter a Web
server with problems.

-- 
David E. Ross


Too often, Twitter is a source of verbal vomit.  Examples include Donald
Trump, Roseanne Barr, and Elon Musk.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[rjkrjk]

plz explain how this is done,  tks




no...@nonospam.org wrote on 9/2/18 6:00 PM:

Replying to a couple of suggestions from different responders:

Clearing my cache did not fix this.

Using the Prefbar add-on, changing my User Agent from SM to Firefox DID fix it. Switching 


**



back and forth between the two, it is repeatable.

Thanks for the suggestions!

John

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162

no...@nonospam.org wrote:

Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced to the 
top of the
search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search some of the 
words would
spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only with SM, and 
it
happened on every computer I tried it on.

Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I 
haven't seen
this on any other website.

Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any ideas 
on how to
eliminate it? Thanks!

John


Google has changed a few things in the last few days.
IMO, they did initial testing a few weeks ago.
My user string does not have your problem in SM on this machine,
but the same string in FF on a different machine does what you said.
On both machines Google has eliminated the URL that bypasses their
"search help" so that now every letter I type gets sent to Google
which then suggests search words.  I hate that and their reporting home.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

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

Re: How to disable the cache for just one site ?

[Mason83]

On 02/09/2018 22:52, Ray_Net wrote:

> I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site.
> 
> To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0
> 
> But now, some sites are too slow.
> 
> How can I disable the cache for just one site ?

I'm not sure you can.

You could enable the cache, and hit SHIFT+F5 when you load
the problematic website.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[notme]

Replying to a couple of suggestions from different responders:

Clearing my cache did not fix this.

Using the Prefbar add-on, changing my User Agent from SM to Firefox DID 
fix it. Switching back and forth between the two, it is repeatable.


Thanks for the suggestions!

John

Paul in Houston, TX wrote:

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162 



no...@nonospam.org wrote:
Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was 
displaced to the top of the
search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search some 
of the words would
spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only 
with SM, and it

happened on every computer I tried it on.

Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back 
again. I haven't seen

this on any other website.

Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? 
Any ideas on how to

eliminate it? Thanks!

John


Google has changed a few things in the last few days.
IMO, they did initial testing a few weeks ago.
My user string does not have your problem in SM on this machine,
but the same string in FF on a different machine does what you said.
On both machines Google has eliminated the URL that bypasses their
"search help" so that now every letter I type gets sent to Google
which then suggests search words.  I hate that and their reporting home.




--
Q: What's the quickest way to get a mailbox full of spam?
A: Post a message in any newsgroup using a real email address.

Therefore, please reply in this newsgroup. Thank you.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

How to disable the cache for just one site ?

[Ray_Net]

I had a problem because SM show me the old version of a page on a site.

To avoid this, I put the cache length = 0

But now, some sites are too slow.

How can I disable the cache for just one site ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[Paul in Houston, TX]

Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162

no...@nonospam.org wrote:

Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced to the 
top of the
search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search some of the 
words would
spill over to a second line in the search box. This happened only with SM, and 
it
happened on every computer I tried it on.

Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I 
haven't seen
this on any other website.

Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any ideas 
on how to
eliminate it? Thanks!

John


Google has changed a few things in the last few days.
IMO, they did initial testing a few weeks ago.
My user string does not have your problem in SM on this machine,
but the same string in FF on a different machine does what you said.
On both machines Google has eliminated the URL that bypasses their
"search help" so that now every letter I type gets sent to Google
which then suggests search words.  I hate that and their reporting home.


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

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3=3041415=14808162#p14808162

no...@nonospam.org wrote:
Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced to the 
top of the search box instead of being centered, and as I typed in a search 
some of the words would spill over to a second line in the search box. This 
happened only with SM, and it happened on every computer I tried it on.


Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I 
haven't seen this on any other website.


Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any ideas 
on how to eliminate it? Thanks!


John

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

Re: Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[David E. Ross]

On 9/2/2018 10:07 AM, no...@nonospam.org wrote:
> Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced 
> to the top of the search box instead of being centered, and as I typed 
> in a search some of the words would spill over to a second line in the 
> search box. This happened only with SM, and it happened on every 
> computer I tried it on.
> 
> Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I 
> haven't seen this on any other website.
> 
> Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any 
> ideas on how to eliminate it? Thanks!
> 
> John
> 

Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (x64)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.4

I do not have this problem.

-- 
David E. Ross


Too often, Twitter is a source of verbal vomit.  Examples include Donald
Trump, Roseanne Barr, and Elon Musk.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Google.com malfunction with SM 2.49.4

[notme]

Yesterday morning, when I went to google.com, the cursor was displaced 
to the top of the search box instead of being centered, and as I typed 
in a search some of the words would spill over to a second line in the 
search box. This happened only with SM, and it happened on every 
computer I tried it on.


Later in the day, the problem disappeared, but today it is back again. I 
haven't seen this on any other website.


Why is this only showing up on SM and not on Firefox, IE11, or Edge? Any 
ideas on how to eliminate it? Thanks!


John
--
Q: What's the quickest way to get a mailbox full of spam?
A: Post a message in any newsgroup using a real email address.

Therefore, please reply in this newsgroup. Thank you.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Adblock Plus for SM?

[Frank-Rainer Grahl]

uBlock is really the better product nowadays.

> (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't work in SM)

I don't see many breakages which are real. Most can be fixed with setting the 
user agent. With most web sites still supporting IE 8 only a few really break. 
Most are google ones and they do it in for Fx too.


> I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the 
Firefox 60 ESR or newer code.  I really don't want to move away from SM, but 
the lack


Maybe 6 months to a year. Firefox has problems of its own and becomes a 
permanent construction camp so anything after 2.57 is off for now. Do what you 
must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. The Fx ui degrades with 
every release now so you can just use the original which imho already looks 
cleaner than Fx.


Locally compiled 2.53 and 2.49.5 both work a champ for me so I don't have any 
need to switch now. Newer web features will probably become a problem in a 
year or two but seriously I don't want things like service workers and wasm 
anyway. I really doubt this will do security any good.


FRG

Hawker wrote:

Thank you both for the clear explanation.

Sounds like I'm stuck where I am.  A few of my ABP filters are now saying 
"this filter subscriptions requires a newer ABP version"
This is going to be a security risk soon I assume as I fund ABP does a better 
job keeping add based virus out than my AV products.


Alas your comment "Most are a joke compared to their former xul based ones." 
Is sadly true. Some of the extensions I see in my Firefox install (which I 
only use for the increasing number of websites that won't work in SM) have way 
more limited UIs than the XUL version. I'm hoping with time they can reach the 
functionality of the old versions. Is there something about how they work that 
means they never will?  And a few of my favorite extensions have not been ported.


I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the Firefox 
60 ESR or newer code.  I really don't want to move away from SM, but the lack 
of developers to keep the code current is putting the handwriting clearly on 
the wall for SM's demise.



On 8/30/2018 12:43 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Thunderbird 60 and SeaMonkey 2.57 are/will not be based on 52 code but on 
Firefox 60 ESR code.


Web extensions were never developed with a program like Thunderbird in mind. 
TB now adds web extensions apis and support but I doubt they will be able to 
make any of the current ad or script blockers work in the near time.


If not for developer shortage this would be actually easier for SeaMonkey 
which already has a browser in place. But the whole Firefox implementation 
is a mess with parts in the browser frontend and parts in the Gecko backend.


And for quantum architectural changes. Most was already in 56 and starting 
with 57 it was just lets rip this and this and that and this out.


It needs to be supported but besides from a few key extensions like uBlock 
and NoScript you won't miss much with web extensions. Most are a joke 
compared to their former xul based ones.


FRG


NFN Smith wrote:

Hawker wrote:
I have Adblock Plus 2.9.1 installed on Seamonkey. My subscriptions are 
starting to say I need a newer version to work.  I can't seem find a SM 
compatible version of Adblock to download.


Is 2.9.1 (over 1 year old) the last version to work? Where can I find 
newer versions?



I believe that 2.9.1 is the most recent version that will run in Seamonkey, 
and I get the impression that that one isn't going to get any more updates.


I know that I've also been running 2.9.1 in Thunderbird, and it works fine 
in TB 52.x, but on the installation I have that I upgraded to Thunderbird 
60, Thunderbird disables it. In Thunderbird, I believe that v60 is still 
52.x code, but where essential updates are being backported from Firefox 
ESR 60. Thus, Thunderbird still supports XUL extensions, but for V60, 
extensions must be tweaked to allow for explicit support of V60.


Realistically, until both Seamonkey and Thunderbird can finish the move to 
WebExtensions, users of both are mostly going to limited to extensions 
whose status is essentially frozen in time.  There may be a some developers 
who do stuff for Seamonkey or Thunderbird explicitly that are continuing to 
update XUL extensions, but for extensions that are primarily Firefox 
extensions, I think that most of the developers are focusing only on what 
can be done in WebExtensions.  They won't pull the older XUL extensions 
(especially now that those are being hosted at thunderbird.net, rather than 
addons.mozilla.org, but don't plan on any additional updates.  Adblock Plus 
is certainly not the only one, but it's a good example.


Unfortunately, both Seamonkey and Thunderbird are still some way away from 
transition to WebExtensions, and other architectural changes that Firefox 
introduced with Quantum.


Smith

Re: Adblock Plus for SM?

[Hawker]

Thank you both for the clear explanation.

Sounds like I'm stuck where I am.  A few of my ABP filters are now 
saying "this filter subscriptions requires a newer ABP version"
This is going to be a security risk soon I assume as I fund ABP does a 
better job keeping add based virus out than my AV products.


Alas your comment "Most are a joke compared to their former xul based 
ones." Is sadly true. Some of the extensions I see in my Firefox install 
(which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't work 
in SM) have way more limited UIs than the XUL version. I'm hoping with 
time they can reach the functionality of the old versions. Is there 
something about how they work that means they never will?  And a few of 
my favorite extensions have not been ported.


I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the 
Firefox 60 ESR or newer code.  I really don't want to move away from SM, 
but the lack of developers to keep the code current is putting the 
handwriting clearly on the wall for SM's demise.



On 8/30/2018 12:43 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Thunderbird 60 and SeaMonkey 2.57 are/will not be based on 52 code but 
on Firefox 60 ESR code.


Web extensions were never developed with a program like Thunderbird in 
mind. TB now adds web extensions apis and support but I doubt they will 
be able to make any of the current ad or script blockers work in the 
near time.


If not for developer shortage this would be actually easier for 
SeaMonkey which already has a browser in place. But the whole Firefox 
implementation is a mess with parts in the browser frontend and parts in 
the Gecko backend.


And for quantum architectural changes. Most was already in 56 and 
starting with 57 it was just lets rip this and this and that and this out.


It needs to be supported but besides from a few key extensions like 
uBlock and NoScript you won't miss much with web extensions. Most are a 
joke compared to their former xul based ones.


FRG


NFN Smith wrote:

Hawker wrote:
I have Adblock Plus 2.9.1 installed on Seamonkey. My subscriptions 
are starting to say I need a newer version to work.  I can't seem 
find a SM compatible version of Adblock to download.


Is 2.9.1 (over 1 year old) the last version to work? Where can I find 
newer versions?



I believe that 2.9.1 is the most recent version that will run in 
Seamonkey, and I get the impression that that one isn't going to get 
any more updates.


I know that I've also been running 2.9.1 in Thunderbird, and it works 
fine in TB 52.x, but on the installation I have that I upgraded to 
Thunderbird 60, Thunderbird disables it. In Thunderbird, I believe 
that v60 is still 52.x code, but where essential updates are being 
backported from Firefox ESR 60. Thus, Thunderbird still supports XUL 
extensions, but for V60, extensions must be tweaked to allow for 
explicit support of V60.


Realistically, until both Seamonkey and Thunderbird can finish the 
move to WebExtensions, users of both are mostly going to limited to 
extensions whose status is essentially frozen in time.  There may be a 
some developers who do stuff for Seamonkey or Thunderbird explicitly 
that are continuing to update XUL extensions, but for extensions that 
are primarily Firefox extensions, I think that most of the developers 
are focusing only on what can be done in WebExtensions.  They won't 
pull the older XUL extensions (especially now that those are being 
hosted at thunderbird.net, rather than addons.mozilla.org, but don't 
plan on any additional updates.  Adblock Plus is certainly not the 
only one, but it's a good example.


Unfortunately, both Seamonkey and Thunderbird are still some way away 
from transition to WebExtensions, and other architectural changes that 
Firefox introduced with Quantum.


Smith



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

Re: No sent folder

[Mike C]

Thanks

Ray_Net wrote:

Mike C wrote on 02-09-18 06:31:

Why don't I have a sent folder?


Your "sent folder" is into the "Local Folders"

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

Re: No sent folder

[Ray_Net]

Mike C wrote on 02-09-18 06:31:

Why don't I have a sent folder?


Your "sent folder" is into the "Local Folders"
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey