Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Mort]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Mort wrote:

I did just that, and the screen says that there are no updates available.


That's strange, but I believe you.


So, do I go with the download URL that connects to a German server that
is allegedly not verifiable? I really would like to download an duse the
latest version = 2.0.1.


It's not the server that is a problem, it's just your operating system
wrongly thinking that every non-signed download is bad. We don't have
the infrastructure for signing, buit out downloads are OK, and all
servers they contact with are mirrors that Mozilla has verified to be
secure and trustworthy.

Robert Kaiser

Thanks a lot. I did the download and all is well.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Robert Kaiser]

Mort wrote:

I did just that, and the screen says that there are no updates available.


That's strange, but I believe you.


So, do I go with the download URL that connects to a German server that
is allegedly not verifiable? I really would like to download an duse the
latest version = 2.0.1.


It's not the server that is a problem, it's just your operating system 
wrongly thinking that every non-signed download is bad. We don't have 
the infrastructure for signing, buit out downloads are OK, and all 
servers they contact with are mirrors that Mozilla has verified to be 
secure and trustworthy.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Mort]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Mort wrote:

The download for SM 2.0.1 is not verifiable, has no certified signature,
and per my current SM 2, cannot be trusted.


That's your operating system telling that, not your SeaMonkey.


What do I do about downloading the new version? Is there is a safe
download URL?


Yes, use the "Help > Check For Updates..." function.

Robert Kaiser

Hi,

I did just that, and the screen says that there are no updates available.

So, do I go with the download URL that connects to a German server that 
is allegedly not verifiable? I really would like to download an duse the 
latest version = 2.0.1.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Robert Kaiser]

Mort wrote:

The download for SM 2.0.1 is not verifiable, has no certified signature,
and per my current SM 2, cannot be trusted.


That's your operating system telling that, not your SeaMonkey.


What do I do about downloading the new version? Is there is a safe
download URL?


Yes, use the "Help > Check For Updates..." function.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Paul]

Paul wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!

I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about
using secure software. ;-)


Yup!
I am careful.


You surely are not. The list of fixed vulnerabilites in 2.0.1 and 
1.1.18 as listed on 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey20.html#seamonkey2.0.1 
and 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey11.html#seamonkey1.1.18 
are all things that your 1.1.17 version is vulnerable to, and there 
are a few others that were fixed between 1.1.18 and 2.0 that we are 
not yet sure where to list correctly on the security pages.


Robert Kaiser


You have convinced me to u/g to 1.1.18 !


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[NoOp]

On 12/17/2009 05:40 PM, Mort wrote:
...
> Hi,
> 
> The download for SM 2.0.1 is not verifiable, has no certified signature, 
> and per my current SM 2, cannot be trusted. The download notice is from 
> Germany. (No slur intended, just the facts.)
> What do I do about downloading the new version? Is there is a safe 
> download URL?

Perhaps change your OS :-)
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/
MD5 sums and SHA1 sums are available for official packages and source
tarballs.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Mort]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!

I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about
using secure software. ;-)


Yup!
I am careful.


You surely are not. The list of fixed vulnerabilites in 2.0.1 and 1.1.18
as listed on
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey20.html#seamonkey2.0.1
and
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey11.html#seamonkey1.1.18
are all things that your 1.1.17 version is vulnerable to, and there are
a few others that were fixed between 1.1.18 and 2.0 that we are not yet
sure where to list correctly on the security pages.

Robert Kaiser

Hi,

The download for SM 2.0.1 is not verifiable, has no certified signature, 
and per my current SM 2, cannot be trusted. The download notice is from 
Germany. (No slur intended, just the facts.)
What do I do about downloading the new version? Is there is a safe 
download URL?


Thanks.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Paul]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!

I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about
using secure software. ;-)


Yup!
I am careful.


You surely are not. The list of fixed vulnerabilites in 2.0.1 and 1.1.18 
as listed on 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey20.html#seamonkey2.0.1 
and 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey11.html#seamonkey1.1.18 
are all things that your 1.1.17 version is vulnerable to, and there are 
a few others that were fixed between 1.1.18 and 2.0 that we are not yet 
sure where to list correctly on the security pages.


Robert Kaiser


You have convinced me to u/g to 1.1.18 !
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Robert Kaiser]

Paul wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!

I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about
using secure software. ;-)


Yup!
I am careful.


You surely are not. The list of fixed vulnerabilites in 2.0.1 and 1.1.18 
as listed on 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey20.html#seamonkey2.0.1 
and 
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/seamonkey11.html#seamonkey1.1.18 
are all things that your 1.1.17 version is vulnerable to, and there are 
a few others that were fixed between 1.1.18 and 2.0 that we are not yet 
sure where to list correctly on the security pages.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Robert Kaiser]

Mark Hansen wrote:

What this means is that SM 1.1.18 is vulnerable to any security holes
discovered by the "bad guys" since it was delivered, and it's only going to
get worse as time moves on and new vulnerabilities are discovered.


Even worse, Paul says he's using 1.1.17, which allows all SSL connection 
to be intercepted by a third party, which was the main problem we fixed 
in 1.1.18.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Rufus]

John wrote:

Rufus wrote:

John wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t
about using secure software. ;-)

Robert Kaiser

What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01? I am
willing to try almost anything but, there neds to be a good reason to
do so.


Security features I not only like, but also recommend to enterprise
customers include:

1) being to directly manually manage cookies,

2) having a Password Manager that uses (or at least used to user
selectively employ...) strong 128 bit encryption when storing Passwords,

3) being able to directly and manually manage Certificates,

4) the fact that the previous Mozilla/Netscape architecture for
handling Certificate is a gov recognized standard,

5) Junk Mail filtering,

6) flexibility/detail provided for user setting of Filters,

7) the previous ability to set rules for script handling for both
Browser and News (which REALLY need to be re-implemented...),

8) ability to blocking entire sites or portions of sites,

9) notifications/alerts for secure vs non-secure sites,

10) no Active-X attack worries...

...crap, that ought to be way more than enough reasons when compared
to something like IE. But there are more...one of which is that it's
all FREE.


thanks--it has to run properly and I have not seen that in SM2.0


It's doing pretty well on my Macs...I've only just started with 2.0.1, 
but that's gone smoothly so far as well - I think the biggest major 
difference is that the Mac install is just drag and drop to replace the 
previous app...that's gotta help the sitch.


That said, there are still some interface issues that make a bit of my 
notes above unclear when it comes to making a recommendation with/for SM 
2.0.  These interface issues are clearly a step in reverse, IMO.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

Rufus wrote:

John wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t 
about using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser
What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01?  I am 
willing to try almost anything but, there neds to be a good reason to 
do so.


Security features I not only like, but also recommend to enterprise 
customers include:


1) being to directly manually manage cookies,

2) having a Password Manager that uses (or at least used to user 
selectively employ...) strong 128 bit encryption when storing Passwords,


3) being able to directly and manually manage Certificates,

4) the fact that the previous Mozilla/Netscape architecture for handling 
Certificate is a gov recognized standard,


5) Junk Mail filtering,

6) flexibility/detail provided for user setting of Filters,

7) the previous ability to set rules for script handling for both 
Browser and News (which REALLY need to be re-implemented...),


8) ability to blocking entire sites or portions of sites,

9) notifications/alerts for secure vs non-secure sites,

10) no Active-X attack worries...

...crap, that ought to be way more than enough reasons when compared to 
something like IE.  But there are more...one of which is that it's all 
FREE.



thanks--it has to run properly and I have not seen that in SM2.0
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Rufus]

John wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser
What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01?  I am 
willing to try almost anything but, there neds to be a good reason to do 
so.


Security features I not only like, but also recommend to enterprise 
customers include:


1) being to directly manually manage cookies,

2) having a Password Manager that uses (or at least used to user 
selectively employ...) strong 128 bit encryption when storing Passwords,


3) being able to directly and manually manage Certificates,

4) the fact that the previous Mozilla/Netscape architecture for handling 
Certificate is a gov recognized standard,


5) Junk Mail filtering,

6) flexibility/detail provided for user setting of Filters,

7) the previous ability to set rules for script handling for both 
Browser and News (which REALLY need to be re-implemented...),


8) ability to blocking entire sites or portions of sites,

9) notifications/alerts for secure vs non-secure sites,

10) no Active-X attack worries...

...crap, that ought to be way more than enough reasons when compared to 
something like IE.  But there are more...one of which is that it's all FREE.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Paul]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!

I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser


Yup!
I am careful.
Have not had a virus since 1991.  And that came
from a floppy from my son.
No trojans, no malware, no spies.
I don't allow them on my machines :)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 12/16/2009 2:45 PM, John wrote:

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.

I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.

Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser
What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01?  I am 
willing to try almost anything but, there needs to be a good reason to do so.


I think you may be confusing "Security Features" with "Security Fixes".

Ever since the dawn of software (well, almost), there have been security
vulnerabilities which can be exploited by those who wish to do harm and/or
benefit at your expense. Each time one of these vulnerabilities is
discovered, software makers work to close them.

This type of cat and mouse game has really exploded with the advent of
the Internet.

I often hear people say something to the effect:

  "If the software I installed 4 years ago was working then, why
  shouldn't I be able to continue using it?"

The answer is that 4 years ago, no one knew about all the security
vulnerabilities that have been discovered in the last 4 years (note
that the time period has been arbitrarily chosen for discussion
purposes).

The issue isn't that there are new security features in SM 2.0 (although
there may be), it's that no one is continuing to apply on-going security fixes
to the 1.1.X code base. "Security Fixes" is different from "Security Features".

What this means is that SM 1.1.18 is vulnerable to any security holes
discovered by the "bad guys" since it was delivered, and it's only going to
get worse as time moves on and new vulnerabilities are discovered.

Note that this is true for all software of this nature; There is nothing
particularly unsafe about SeaMonkey (as a product) in this regard.

I hope this helps explain things.


I totally understand the older the version the more time folks have to 
hack it or what ever, I read about this on the Mozilla information page 
but, I have serious concerns about how smoothly newer versions will run. 
 SM2.0 was totally unacceptable.  I have no reason to believe that 2.01 
will be any better.  I am going to have to think on this for awhile.


Thanks for the information.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/16/2009 2:45 PM, John wrote:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> John wrote:
 Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
 vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
 username & password for email accounts. ugly.
>>>
>>> I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
>>> to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
>>> I should be good now until about the year 2014.
>> 
>> Congratulations!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
>> using secure software. ;-)
>> 
>> Robert Kaiser
> What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01?  I am 
> willing to try almost anything but, there neds to be a good reason to do so.

I think you may be confusing "Security Features" with "Security Fixes".

Ever since the dawn of software (well, almost), there have been security
vulnerabilities which can be exploited by those who wish to do harm and/or
benefit at your expense. Each time one of these vulnerabilities is
discovered, software makers work to close them.

This type of cat and mouse game has really exploded with the advent of
the Internet.

I often hear people say something to the effect:

  "If the software I installed 4 years ago was working then, why
  shouldn't I be able to continue using it?"

The answer is that 4 years ago, no one knew about all the security
vulnerabilities that have been discovered in the last 4 years (note
that the time period has been arbitrarily chosen for discussion
purposes).

The issue isn't that there are new security features in SM 2.0 (although
there may be), it's that no one is continuing to apply on-going security fixes
to the 1.1.X code base. "Security Fixes" is different from "Security Features".

What this means is that SM 1.1.18 is vulnerable to any security holes
discovered by the "bad guys" since it was delivered, and it's only going to
get worse as time moves on and new vulnerabilities are discovered.

Note that this is true for all software of this nature; There is nothing
particularly unsafe about SeaMonkey (as a product) in this regard.

I hope this helps explain things.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser
What specifically are the security features of 2.0 and/or 2.01?  I am 
willing to try almost anything but, there neds to be a good reason to do so.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Bill Davidsen]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


I think the operative word here is "using" rather than secure. People who 
perceive 2.0.x as hard to use aren't going to switch easily. I still have the 
old version for reading these groups and filling out forms.



--
Bill Davidsen 
  "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John Doue]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser


Well, I can understand your surprise but, with a properly configured and 
uptodate system, professional AV and Antimalware, I am not sure - for 
lack of definitive expertise - a "secure" browser is that indispensable.


What surprises me more, is for a user to stay with Netscape 4.08 when 
7.02 probably was the best version ever of the suite, and secondly, that 
the user did not encounter enough browsing problems with an older engine 
to feel the need to update.


At the end of the day, I believe usability and clear interface are two 
factors whose importance cannot be stressed enough.


No doubt SM2 will over time iron out the few quirks it has and be as 
successful as its predecessors.


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


Robert Kaiser
Security is important but, having a properly working browser/email 
client is also important, to me anyway.  I had the feeling that SM2.0 
was not ready for "Prime Time"


The question is whether the bugs are out of 2.0 and/or 2.01.  I am
perfectly happy to use SM but, it was the constant request for
username/password that drove me away from 2.0.
I also did not like having unread messages marked read when they were 
deleted.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Robert Kaiser]

Paul wrote:

John wrote:

Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0
vanished. It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117. I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


Congratulations!



I probably just need to realize there are people who give a sh*t about 
using secure software. ;-)


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

John Doue wrote:

Paul wrote:

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 
vanished.  It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a 
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117.  I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


I must say, I am surprised you did not at some point upgrade to Netscape 
7.2!


I have had very bad experiences with AOL of I would stay away from 
Netscape.  I did use it from its inception until it was sold.

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John Doue]

Paul wrote:

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 
vanished.  It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a 
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117.  I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.


I must say, I am surprised you did not at some point upgrade to Netscape 
7.2!


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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[John]

Paul wrote:

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 
vanished.  It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a 
username & password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117.  I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.

I would vote for that. :)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Paul]

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 vanished. 
 It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a username & 
password for email accounts. ugly.


I used Netscape 4.08 until a year ago, then went
to SM 1117.  I am still with 1117.
I should be good now until about the year 2014.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[question]

Norvin wrote:

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 
vanished.  It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a 
username & password for email accounts. ugly.

I went back to, didn't want the hassle that SM2.0 brought with it.

 Welcome Back to the Real World ..

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

Re: SM2.0 vs 1.1.18

[Norvin]

John wrote:
Just re installed 1.1.18 and all the problems I had with SM2.0 vanished. 
 It was really annoying using SM2.0 it kept asking for a username & 
password for email accounts. ugly.

I went back to, didn't want the hassle that SM2.0 brought with it.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[NoOp]

On 12/03/2009 11:47 AM, Hartmut Figge wrote:
> NoOp:
> 
>>I've been able to change the fonts for message/news body, browser, menus
>>(system), but cannot seem to find a way to change the font size on the
>>the message/news headers (subject/from/date/etc). I seem to recall that
>>there was a fix for this using prefs.js or something in chrome, but
>>can't seem to find it in my files. Anyone recall how to do this - the
>>headers are so small on my Windows systems (Win2KPro and WinXP - default
>>theme) that I can barely read them.
> 
> I am happy with this :)
> 
> - ueserChrome.css -
> * {
>   font-size: 11pt !important;
>   font-family: arial !important;
> }
> ---
> 
> Hartmut

That's the one! Thanks Harmut.

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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Martin Freitag a écrit :



um, please start the cleartype adjustment in Windows to get rid of
"ghosts".
(after making sure your monitor is fine and proper calibrated ;-))



It's the first thing I did when I encountered that problem, even before 
I sent my first message here! ^_~


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

S. Beaulieu schrieb:

Martin Freitag a écrit :

Correct, this was one example ;-)


Ah! Gotcha!

But I guess I'm getting used to it as it doesn't bother me as much as it
did yesterday. It's only when text is bolded (for example, new messages)
that it's really obvious, with a kind of reddish halo.



um, please start the cleartype adjustment in Windows to get rid of 
"ghosts".

(after making sure your monitor is fine and proper calibrated ;-))



Altogether, depending on the fonts, it looks like text hasn't been
aliased/is oversharpened or is oversmoothed. It's really strange.



Yeah, I agree.



Thanks for your help!

You're welcome.

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Hartmut Figge]

NoOp:

>I've been able to change the fonts for message/news body, browser, menus
>(system), but cannot seem to find a way to change the font size on the
>the message/news headers (subject/from/date/etc). I seem to recall that
>there was a fix for this using prefs.js or something in chrome, but
>can't seem to find it in my files. Anyone recall how to do this - the
>headers are so small on my Windows systems (Win2KPro and WinXP - default
>theme) that I can barely read them.

I am happy with this :)

- ueserChrome.css -
* {
  font-size: 11pt !important;
  font-family: arial !important;
}
---

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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[NoOp]

On 12/03/2009 10:18 AM, Martin Freitag wrote:
> S. Beaulieu schrieb:
>> Martin Freitag a écrit :
>>>
>>> Select the proper encoding there at the top (above the fonts).
>>> Common encodings are Western and Unicode. If you change the fixed width
>>> font for both, it should have an effect.
>>
>>
>> It changes the fonts in the body of emails/newsgroup messages, but
>> nowhere else.
> Correct, this was one example ;-)
> The others are not fixed width fonts. Feel free to change as many 
> font-types as you need. (menubar might be taken from windows setting though)
> For me the messages were the worst, the rest is pretty fine.
> regards
> 
> Martin

I've been able to change the fonts for message/news body, browser, menus
(system), but cannot seem to find a way to change the font size on the
the message/news headers (subject/from/date/etc). I seem to recall that
there was a fix for this using prefs.js or something in chrome, but
can't seem to find it in my files. Anyone recall how to do this - the
headers are so small on my Windows systems (Win2KPro and WinXP - default
theme) that I can barely read them.

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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Martin Freitag a écrit :

Correct, this was one example ;-)


Ah! Gotcha!

But I guess I'm getting used to it as it doesn't bother me as much as it 
did yesterday. It's only when text is bolded (for example, new messages) 
that it's really obvious, with a kind of reddish halo.


Altogether, depending on the fonts, it looks like text hasn't been 
aliased/is oversharpened or is oversmoothed. It's really strange.


Thanks for your help!

S.

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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

S. Beaulieu schrieb:

Martin Freitag a écrit :


Select the proper encoding there at the top (above the fonts).
Common encodings are Western and Unicode. If you change the fixed width
font for both, it should have an effect.



It changes the fonts in the body of emails/newsgroup messages, but
nowhere else.

Correct, this was one example ;-)
The others are not fixed width fonts. Feel free to change as many 
font-types as you need. (menubar might be taken from windows setting though)

For me the messages were the worst, the rest is pretty fine.
regards

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Martin Freitag a écrit :


Select the proper encoding there at the top (above the fonts).
Common encodings are Western and Unicode. If you change the fixed width
font for both, it should have an effect.



It changes the fonts in the body of emails/newsgroup messages, but 
nowhere else.


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

S. Beaulieu schrieb:

Martin Freitag a écrit :


Edit => Preferences => Appearance => Fonts?
(fixed width at the bottom)



I tried that, but it didn't change anything. I think I'm just unkowingly
skipping a step...


Select the proper encoding there at the top (above the fonts).
Common encodings are Western and Unicode. If you change the fixed width 
font for both, it should have an effect.

regards

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Martin Freitag a écrit :


Edit => Preferences => Appearance => Fonts?
(fixed width at the bottom)



I tried that, but it didn't change anything. I think I'm just unkowingly 
skipping a step...


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

S. Beaulieu schrieb:

Martin Freitag wrote:

or choose another
font for things like the message display in the Seamonkey preferences,
e.g. compare Courier and Courier New for the fixed width font and you'll
see a huuuge difference when reading mail/newsgroup messages.
regards



Hum. I can't seem to find how to do that. There is no font option in the
Message display pane and the only place I find some seems to be for
changing the default font throughout the software...


Edit => Preferences => Appearance => Fonts?
(fixed width at the bottom)

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

S. Beaulieu schrieb:

Martin Freitag wrote:

or choose another
font for things like the message display in the Seamonkey preferences,
e.g. compare Courier and Courier New for the fixed width font and you'll
see a huuuge difference when reading mail/newsgroup messages.
regards



Hum. I can't seem to find how to do that. There is no font option in the
Message display pane and the only place I find some seems to be for
changing the default font throughout the software...


Edit => Preferences => Appearance => Fonts?
(fixed width at the bottom)

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Martin Freitag wrote:

or choose another
font for things like the message display in the Seamonkey preferences,
e.g. compare Courier and Courier New for the fixed width font and you'll
see a huuuge difference when reading mail/newsgroup messages.
regards



Hum. I can't seem to find how to do that. There is no font option in the 
Message display pane and the only place I find some seems to be for 
changing the default font throughout the software...


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Martin Freitag]

Leonidas Jones schrieb:

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Well, there is only one thing: my fonts in SM (and not elsewhere, it
semms, but I haven't played much with anything but SM) now look all kind
of fuzzy/blurry, not as sharp as they were on my old computer. I've
tried playing with my screen's and Windows' settings, thinking at first
that it had to do with drivers and such, but it really seems to be
restricted to SM. Even the font itself looks slightly of different than
before (which shouldn't be the case, as I didn't change anything on that
front).

Do you have any ideas what could be causing this? Would it have to do
with my Appearance settings?

S.


Well, I'm a Mac user. I have Windows boxes, but nothing running Win7 at
this point. Perhaps a Win & user will jump in.


This is exactly the same experience I had when firing up SM on Win7. 
It's the cleartype functionality of Win7. You can try to turn it off in 
the OS (but many fonts will look pretty ugly then) or choose another 
font for things like the message display in the Seamonkey preferences, 
e.g. compare Courier and Courier New for the fixed width font and you'll 
see a huuuge difference when reading mail/newsgroup messages.

regards

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Leonidas Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Leonidas Jones wrote:


It is a pretty easy approach. I amso glad to here its working for you.
Let us know if we can be of further help.



Well, there is only one thing: my fonts in SM (and not elsewhere, it
semms, but I haven't played much with anything but SM) now look all kind
of fuzzy/blurry, not as sharp as they were on my old computer. I've
tried playing with my screen's and Windows' settings, thinking at first
that it had to do with drivers and such, but it really seems to be
restricted to SM. Even the font itself looks slightly of different than
before (which shouldn't be the case, as I didn't change anything on that
front).

Do you have any ideas what could be causing this? Would it have to do
with my Appearance settings?

S.


Well, I'm a Mac user.  I have Windows boxes, but nothing running Win7 at 
this point. Perhaps a Win & user will jump in.


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Leonidas Jones wrote:


It is a pretty easy approach. I amso glad to here its working for you.
Let us know if we can be of further help.



Well, there is only one thing: my fonts in SM (and not elsewhere, it 
semms, but I haven't played much with anything but SM) now look all kind 
of fuzzy/blurry, not as sharp as they were on my old computer. I've 
tried playing with my screen's and Windows' settings, thinking at first 
that it had to do with drivers and such, but it really seems to be 
restricted to SM. Even the font itself looks slightly of different than 
before (which shouldn't be the case, as I didn't change anything on that 
front).


Do you have any ideas what could be causing this? Would it have to do 
with my Appearance settings?


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Leonidas Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Leonidas Jones wrote:


As long as you are moving a SeaMonkey 2.0 profile from Win 2K to Win 7,
there should be no problem with your procedure.



You were right! I'm writing from the new computer and the transfer was
100% painless and easy! I just hard a hard time figuring out how to not
have to use the Search function...

(Well, Win2K looks like crap and is definitely going to need some
getting used to, but I guess that's besides the point!)

Thank you very much.

S.


It is a pretty easy approach. I amso glad to here its working for you. 
Let us know if we can be of further help.


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Leonidas Jones wrote:


As long as you are moving a SeaMonkey 2.0 profile from Win 2K to Win 7,
there should be no problem with your procedure.



You were right! I'm writing from the new computer and the transfer was 
100% painless and easy! I just hard a hard time figuring out how to not 
have to use the Search function...


(Well, Win2K looks like crap and is definitely going to need some 
getting used to, but I guess that's besides the point!)


Thank you very much.

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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Danny Kile]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

I'll be getting a new computer either today or tomorrow. While I am
familiar with the profile transfer process, which I've done many times
before, I've never done it on anything more exotic than going from Win2K
to WinXP.

So my question is, is there any specific process to use to transfer my
2.0 profile from Win2K to Win7 or is the standard cut and paste approach
sufficient?

Any information on this matter will be much appreciated.

S.


Why not just use Mozbackup, you make a backup from one PC and then do a 
restore on the second.


Link:  http://mozbackup.jasnapaka.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Leonidas Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Leonidas Jones wrote:


The standard cut and paste manual move will work, as long as you find
the proper profile location, which is different on Win7 then on either
2K or XP:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_SeaMonkey



Thank you!

Just to be sure I was clear, my "regular C&P approach" is to copy
whatever is below the basic profile folder, files and all, and crush it
over whatever is below the basic profile folder of the second computer.
So that will still work? Colour me impressed, as I would have expected
to be told that the infrastructure was completely different. yay for
simplicity!

How about copying my whole default profile into the default profile
location on the new computer *before* I installed SM on it? Would that
also work? I've never tried that approach before.

S.


As long as you are moving a SeaMonkey 2.0 profile from Win 2K to Win 7, 
there should be no problem with your procedure.


For what its worth, here is how I go about it, which is slightly 
different then you may see elsewhere.


Copy the profile folder from the old machine.

Install SeaMonkey 2.0 on the new machine.  Use the Profile Manager to 
create its default profile.  Do not open SeaMonkey yet, just close 
Profile Manager once the new profile is created.


With SeaMonkey closed, navigate to your new profile folder, the location 
of which can be found at the link I provided earlier.  The new profile 
will be in a folder called .default.  Your old profile will be 
.(profilename).  Paste the old profile folder from the old 
machine in along side the newly created profile folder.


The x's in the above examples are actually a random string of numbers 
and letters.  (profilename) would the name of your profile from your old 
computer, which may very well be "default".


For the sake of this example, say the newly created profile is 
a1b2c3d4.default, and the profile from the old machine is 
4d3c2b1a.default.  Make a note of the newly created profile name.


Rename this newly created profile to a1b2c3d4.defaultold.  Then rename 
your old machine profile, 4d3c2b1a.default to a1b2c3d4.default.


In short, rename the profile you are moving to the same name as the one 
you just created.  Close out, then start SeaMonkey.  You should see your 
moved profile with all the data you had on Win2K.


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[S. Beaulieu]

Leonidas Jones wrote:


The standard cut and paste manual move will work, as long as you find
the proper profile location, which is different on Win7 then on either
2K or XP:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_SeaMonkey



Thank you!

Just to be sure I was clear, my "regular C&P approach" is to copy 
whatever is below the basic profile folder, files and all, and crush it 
over whatever is below the basic profile folder of the second computer. 
So that will still work? Colour me impressed, as I would have expected 
to be told that the infrastructure was completely different. yay for 
simplicity!


How about copying my whole default profile into the default profile 
location on the new computer *before* I installed SM on it? Would that 
also work? I've never tried that approach before.


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

Re: SM2.0 from Win2K to Win7

[Leonidas Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

I'll be getting a new computer either today or tomorrow. While I am
familiar with the profile transfer process, which I've done many times
before, I've never done it on anything more exotic than going from Win2K
to WinXP.

So my question is, is there any specific process to use to transfer my
2.0 profile from Win2K to Win7 or is the standard cut and paste approach
sufficient?

Any information on this matter will be much appreciated.

S.


The standard cut and paste manual move will work, as long as you find 
the proper profile location, which is different on Win7 then on either 
2K or XP:


http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_SeaMonkey

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

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[John Boyle]

Bernard Mercier wrote:
> Sandalin a formulé la demande :
>   
>> I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more 
>> exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window) 
>> and immediately closes.
>> 
>
>   
>> Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.
>> 
>
>   
>> Win XP SP3
>> 
>
>   
>> PLEASE HELP !!! 
>> 
> Not enough memory?
>
>   
Wrong Browser!

-- 
Old Sarge-John Boyle
IN GOD WE TRUST!

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

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[Bernard Mercier]

Sandalin a formulé la demande :
> I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more 
> exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window) 
> and immediately closes.

> Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.

> Win XP SP3

> PLEASE HELP !!! 
Not enough memory?

-- 
[URL=http://users.kbc.skynet.be/fi001005] *Belgische Ardennen - Ardennes Belge
[/URL]


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

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[wwill]

Sandalin wrote:
I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more 
exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window) 
and immediately closes.


Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.

Win XP SP3

PLEASE HELP !!! 





i have NEVER been able to open seamonkey 2.  ever.  i've tried it in 
beta, etc, and even now that it's out, i just can't make it GO!  i've 
even installed it after new formats and it just doesn't work.  i don't 
know if there's conflicting software or what the problem is, i just know 
it never, ever, has started for me.  on win xp or win 7.

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

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[chicagofan]

Mark Hansen wrote:

On 11/14/2009 12:05 PM, chicagofan wrote:

Sandalin wrote:

I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more
exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window)
and immediately closes.

Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.

Win XP SP3


Quick Launch is gone in SM 2.0.  If you search this group for "launch",
you will see the previous discussions, about why it was dropped.



The OP wasn't talking about quick launch. It sounds like they are trying
to launch the browser, and it is just terminating without opening any
visible windows.



I thought about that, after posting and then re-reading it the OP 
message, but didn't have a solution to offer.  :(


I did read some suggestions earlier to check administrative rights 
and/or firewall settings when facing this problem.  Others had this 
problem disappear after re-installing but he's already tried that.

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

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[Mark Hansen]

On 11/14/2009 12:05 PM, chicagofan wrote:

Sandalin wrote:

I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more
exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window)
and immediately closes.

Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.

Win XP SP3

PLEASE HELP !!!




Quick Launch is gone in SM 2.0.  If you search this group for "launch", 
you will see the previous discussions, about why it was dropped.

bj


The OP wasn't talking about quick launch. It sounds like they are trying
to launch the browser, and it is just terminating without opening any
visible windows.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 does not launch

[chicagofan]

Sandalin wrote:

I successfully installed SM2, but unforunately it does not launch or more
exactly as i see in the task manager, it launches (does not open any window)
and immediately closes.

Tried to uninstall, re-download, re-install, all the same.

Win XP SP3

PLEASE HELP !!!




Quick Launch is gone in SM 2.0.  If you search this group for "launch", 
you will see the previous discussions, about why it was dropped.

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

Re: SM2.0

[NoOp]

On 11/04/2009 07:14 AM, Rick wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 02:24 PM, Rick wrote:
>>> Rick wrote:
 Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed my 
 iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs are 
 worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had problems. 
 There was nothing else running and some thing called SM Wizard showed up 
 but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the system.
>>> it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed
>> 
>> I seriously doubt that SeaMonkey trashed any of your iTunes & other
>> folders. But, assuming that it did; can you please detail _exactly_ what
>> you did to install SM 2.0 and reinstall 1.1.18, what your operating
>> system is & also your hardware details?
>> 
>> 
> I closed all open applications double clicked the file I downloaded from 
> Mozilla and then I got a message that it was installing SM 2.0  then, 
> something called wizard showed up and continued to run for about 1 hour 
>   at that point I restarted the computer and found the damage.

Without further details, my guess would be that you had/have something
else wrong with your system. That's not to discount that something in
the SM installer didn't contribute to the issue, but I see no possible
way to show otherwise without additional details. _If_ SM did create the
problem, then it would be most helpful to know how/why as that's a
pretty serious issue.

 You still haven't provided details regarding the OS & hardware. Please
also provide the *exact* information regarding "trashed all my files in
acouple of folders" + what (if any) antivirus you use, when you last
scanned your system with the AV, etc.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 - NNTP - Enumerates every group on server?

[Gerry Hickman]

NoOp wrote:


It still gets new messages automatically when I click on a group, but
not when I expand a server?



If that's correct, it's perfect.

Cool! I've done the same on my other systems and that does indeed make
nntp livable again.


After starting it again today, everything is working correctly with your 
new setting. I still get all the new msgs once I click on the actual group.


Thanks.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0

[Rick]

Graham wrote:

Rick wrote:

Graham wrote:
SM 2.0 has it problems, but if you really did end up with other 
trashed folders, your system has other, more serious problems because 
the SM install won't touch other folders. When did you last run a 
chkdsk on your drive(s)?
my system was running very smoothly until I tried to install SM.  It 
was the culprit no doubt.  It trashed all my music, videos, and 
photographs.

Never seen anything like that before.


I see you avoided answering my question about chkdsk. A system may run 
fine with a corrupt disk until something finally causes the corruption 
to become obvious.
sorry--chkdsk and defrag are run on a regular schedule every two weeks 
or so.  I can attest that there was no problem with the HD's

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

Re: SM2.0

[Rick]

NoOp wrote:

On 11/03/2009 02:24 PM, Rick wrote:

Rick wrote:
Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed my 
iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs are 
worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had problems. 
There was nothing else running and some thing called SM Wizard showed up 
but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the system.

it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed


I seriously doubt that SeaMonkey trashed any of your iTunes & other
folders. But, assuming that it did; can you please detail _exactly_ what
you did to install SM 2.0 and reinstall 1.1.18, what your operating
system is & also your hardware details?


I closed all open applications double clicked the file I downloaded from 
Mozilla and then I got a message that it was installing SM 2.0  then, 
something called wizard showed up and continued to run for about 1 hour 
 at that point I restarted the computer and found the damage.

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

Re: SM2.0

[Graham]

Rick wrote:

Graham wrote:
SM 2.0 has it problems, but if you really did end up with other 
trashed folders, your system has other, more serious problems because 
the SM install won't touch other folders. When did you last run a 
chkdsk on your drive(s)?
my system was running very smoothly until I tried to install SM.  It was 
the culprit no doubt.  It trashed all my music, videos, and photographs.

Never seen anything like that before.


I see you avoided answering my question about chkdsk. A system may run 
fine with a corrupt disk until something finally causes the corruption 
to become obvious.

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

Re: SM2.0

[NoOp]

On 11/03/2009 02:24 PM, Rick wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>> Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed my 
>> iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs are 
>> worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had problems. 
>> There was nothing else running and some thing called SM Wizard showed up 
>> but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the system.
> it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed

I seriously doubt that SeaMonkey trashed any of your iTunes & other
folders. But, assuming that it did; can you please detail _exactly_ what
you did to install SM 2.0 and reinstall 1.1.18, what your operating
system is & also your hardware details?


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

Re: SM2.0

[Rick]

Graham wrote:

Rick wrote:

Rick wrote:
Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed 
my iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs 
are worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had 
problems. There was nothing else running and some thing called SM 
Wizard showed up but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the 
system.

it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed


SM 2.0 has it problems, but if you really did end up with other trashed 
folders, your system has other, more serious problems because the SM 
install won't touch other folders. When did you last run a chkdsk on 
your drive(s)?
my system was running very smoothly until I tried to install SM.  It was 
the culprit no doubt.  It trashed all my music, videos, and photographs.

Never seen anything like that before.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0

[Graham]

Rick wrote:

Rick wrote:
Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed my 
iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs are 
worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had problems. 
There was nothing else running and some thing called SM Wizard showed 
up but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the system.

it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed


SM 2.0 has it problems, but if you really did end up with other trashed 
folders, your system has other, more serious problems because the SM 
install won't touch other folders. When did you last run a chkdsk on 
your drive(s)?

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

Re: SM2.0

[Rick]

Rick wrote:
Just tried to install SM 2.0 and it totally did not work it trashed my 
iTunes files and it will not be found on my system until the bugs are 
worked out of it.  This is the first time I have ever had problems. 
There was nothing else running and some thing called SM Wizard showed up 
but, did nothing.  I reinstalled 1.18 restarted the system.

it also trashed all my files in acouple of folders.  I am Really PO ed
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 - NNTP - Enumerates every group on server?

[NoOp]

On 11/03/2009 11:47 AM, Gerry Hickman wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
> 
>> This isn't a fix, but may make things a little more bearable until a fix
>> is provided:
>>
>> about:config
>>news.update_unread_on_expand;false
>>
>> Of course you'll need to 'get new msgs' to refresh,
> 
> Interesting, I've just tried this and it APPEARS to be working 
> perfectly, just like in 1.1.18
> 
> It still gets new messages automatically when I click on a group, but 
> not when I expand a server? 

Yes.

If that's correct, it's perfect.

Cool! I've done the same on my other systems and that does indeed make
nntp livable again.

> 
> I did report this during the beta, but no one seemed interested.

I reckon we'll need to find a relevant bug report and or create a new
one. That's pretty much the only way to get it fixed in 2.0.1 & even
then it may be as simple as making the default
'news.update_unread_on_expand;false'.



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

Re: SM2.0 - NNTP - Enumerates every group on server?

[Gerry Hickman]

NoOp wrote:


This isn't a fix, but may make things a little more bearable until a fix
is provided:

about:config
   news.update_unread_on_expand;false

Of course you'll need to 'get new msgs' to refresh,


Interesting, I've just tried this and it APPEARS to be working 
perfectly, just like in 1.1.18


It still gets new messages automatically when I click on a group, but 
not when I expand a server? If that's correct, it's perfect.


I did report this during the beta, but no one seemed interested.


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 - NNTP - Enumerates every group on server?

[NoOp]

On 11/02/2009 03:14 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 02:56 PM, Gerry Hickman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I originally posted this (beware word wrap):
>> 
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mozilla.support.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/147e4d1528873264/
>> 
>> I since managed to get my newsgroups working by interacting with all the 
>> dialogs and it's now acceptable, but it still has this crazy behavior 
>> that every time I expand a news server with many groups, it enumerates 
>> EVERY group on the server, causing a slow down and basically it's 
>> inefficient. In the NNTP settings, all my options to check for new 
>> messages are un-checked. The tick box telling it how many msgs to 
>> download still appears not to stick from one session to the next (on my 
>> system it's un-ticked anyway but somehow it's stuck on 500 from my old 
>> profile).
>> 
>> In 1.1.18 it did not have these issues, it would only interact with the 
>> specific group you clicked on. It would not try to download until you 
>> clicked on a group.
>> 
>> Anyone else?
>> 
> 
> Yes. See the "Feedback to Seamonkey developers - SM 2.0 high CPU
> resource consumption bursts" thread.

This isn't a fix, but may make things a little more bearable until a fix
is provided:

about:config
  news.update_unread_on_expand;false

Of course you'll need to 'get new msgs' to refresh, but at least it
stops SM from going out and refreshing the entire list of newsgroups
when you expand the new server. (This is a real issue for those of use
that may have 20 or 30 newsgroups that we are subscribed to on a single
server (gmane.org for instance).

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

Re: SM2.0 - NNTP - Enumerates every group on server?

[NoOp]

On 11/02/2009 02:56 PM, Gerry Hickman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I originally posted this (beware word wrap):
> 
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mozilla.support.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/147e4d1528873264/
> 
> I since managed to get my newsgroups working by interacting with all the 
> dialogs and it's now acceptable, but it still has this crazy behavior 
> that every time I expand a news server with many groups, it enumerates 
> EVERY group on the server, causing a slow down and basically it's 
> inefficient. In the NNTP settings, all my options to check for new 
> messages are un-checked. The tick box telling it how many msgs to 
> download still appears not to stick from one session to the next (on my 
> system it's un-ticked anyway but somehow it's stuck on 500 from my old 
> profile).
> 
> In 1.1.18 it did not have these issues, it would only interact with the 
> specific group you clicked on. It would not try to download until you 
> clicked on a group.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 

Yes. See the "Feedback to Seamonkey developers - SM 2.0 high CPU
resource consumption bursts" thread.


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

Re: SM2.0 Erased Password Manager

[Martin Freitag]

TMitchell schrieb:
> SM2.0 erased the contents of Password manager, costing me dozens of site
> usernames and passwords.  Exactly where on Windos is the data for
> Password Manger kept?  I might be able to recover that lost data from my
> last system backup.  Also, is that date kept in a location different
> than it was in SM1.18?

SM2 doesn't erase anything, it migrates data to a NEW profile. Your old
SM1.1.x profile is safe an can still be used.
Maybe something went wrong during Migration. You can try to migrate the
old profile manually as often as you like:

regards

Martin
-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Gerry Hickman]

Fred wrote:


"browser.download.manager.alertOnEXEOpen" set to false works for me. It
removes the stupid security tag on exe and zip extensions, the ones I
have tested with.


Yes, it seems setting just this one option prevents the Zone.Identifier 
problem.


There's a good article here:

http://blog.case.edu/bes7/

Apparently, it's going to be shelved in FireFox 3.6?

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Fred]

Martin Freitag skriver:

Jens Hatlak schrieb:

 On 10/12/2009 10:37 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:

 If you've ever had the mis-fortune to use Microsoft IE on windows,
 you'll notice every file you download is initially "blocked". It
 places a second NTFS stream on the file. I'd been using SeaMonkey 2.0b
 and everything was OK. Today I've installed RC1 and now my downloads
 are blocked - just like in IE.


 

 SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.


I'm afraid I don't get the point even after reading
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504804
Can someone summarize that in easy words? What are they planning to do
now concerning the zone-identifier? What kind of OS setting are going to
be "repected"? And will there be a GUI for configuration?
I don't get it and that thing is already resolved fixed.
Thanks

Martin


"browser.download.manager.alertOnEXEOpen" set to false works for me. It 
removes the stupid security tag on exe and zip extensions, the ones I 
have tested with.


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

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Gerry Hickman]

Juergen Herz wrote:


I didn't test any of this, but have a look into about:config in
app.update. There are two interesting prefs: app.update.mode and
app.update.silent.
See
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Software_Update:Checking_For_Updates#Preference_Controls_and_State


Interesting. I did not know about these settings. app.update.silent may 
be able to make it fully automatic.



for a description of them. Maybe at least one of them is set non-default
on your installation.


Unfortunately, I've messed with the prefs in the UI since this happened, 
so I don't know what the settings were last week, but I certainly never 
touched them since moving from SM 1.1 to SM 2.0 and I'd guess the 
profile migrator would have set them to sensible defaults...


Anyway, it's nice to know about these prefs for future.

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Juergen Herz]

On 2009-10-13 21:50, Gerry Hickman wrote:

>  From your answers, I'm guessing fully automatic update is impossible 
> with SM, so maybe I'd pressed a key which dismissed a confirmation dialog.

I didn't test any of this, but have a look into about:config in
app.update. There are two interesting prefs: app.update.mode and
app.update.silent.
See
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Software_Update:Checking_For_Updates#Preference_Controls_and_State
for a description of them. Maybe at least one of them is set non-default
on your installation.

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

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[NoOp]

On 10/13/2009 12:55 PM, Gerry Hickman wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
> 
>> @Gerry: what version of Windows? I have tested on both Win2KPro and
>> WinXPPro and cannot seem to replicate. Test file used:
>>
>> 
> 
> I'm on Vista SP2, but it's so much the o/s version. I think it all 
> depends on your version of the IE browser. If you have version 7 or 8, 
> you will probably notice the problem. After downloading a file, 
> right-click the file, if you are affected, you'll see an "unblock" button.
> 

Ah. So it's the OS. I don't use IE except when absolutely need for
getting updates.

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

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Gerry Hickman]

NoOp wrote:


@Gerry: what version of Windows? I have tested on both Win2KPro and
WinXPPro and cannot seem to replicate. Test file used:




I'm on Vista SP2, but it's so much the o/s version. I think it all 
depends on your version of the IE browser. If you have version 7 or 8, 
you will probably notice the problem. After downloading a file, 
right-click the file, if you are affected, you'll see an "unblock" button.


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Gerry Hickman]

Martin Freitag wrote:


It runs without a classic installer. It performs all file copy
operations etc. after a single click (or two). Afterwards you just have
to confirm the restart of SM afaik.


Thanks. I don't know how it happened, but somehow it updated itself from 
SM2.0 beta to SM2.0 RC1. I'd been working in another program, I noticed 
the little Seamonkey pop-up in the bottom right of the screen saying an 
update was available, but I don't remember clicking on any confirmation 
dialog... When I went to use SM the next day there was a progress bar, 
then it made me confirm SM is the default client, then it was suddenly 
on 2.0 RC1!


From your answers, I'm guessing fully automatic update is impossible 
with SM, so maybe I'd pressed a key which dismissed a confirmation dialog.


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Jens Hatlak]

On 10/13/2009 1:14 AM Martin Freitag wrote:

Jens Hatlak schrieb:

On 10/12/2009 10:37 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:

If you've ever had the mis-fortune to use Microsoft IE on windows,
you'll notice every file you download is initially "blocked". It
places a second NTFS stream on the file. I'd been using SeaMonkey 2.0b
and everything was OK. Today I've installed RC1 and now my downloads
are blocked - just like in IE.




SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.


I'm afraid I don't get the point even after reading
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504804


Bug 504804 only landed on trunk (before mozilla1.9.2 branched, so it's 
fixed there, too). SM 2.0 uses the mozilla1.9.1 branch and that fix 
probably won't land there (read comments 24-26).


Hints:
- Version says Trunk
- Target Milestone says mozilla1.9.2a1
- Keywords does not contain fixed1.9.1

The URL I provided points to bug 499448 comment 3 which describes a 
workaround (adding/setting certain prefs). This is probably all you can 
do for the lifetime of FF 3.5 and SM 2.0.


HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Martin Freitag]

NoOp schrieb:

On 10/12/2009 04:14 PM, Martin Freitag wrote:

Jens Hatlak schrieb:




SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.


I'm afraid I don't get the point even after reading
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504804
Can someone summarize that in easy words? What are they planning to do
now concerning the zone-identifier? What kind of OS setting are going to
be "respected"? And will there be a GUI for configuration?
I don't get it and that thing is already resolved fixed.
Thanks

Martin


Nor do I.

@Gerry: what version of Windows? I have tested on both Win2KPro and
WinXPPro and cannot seem to replicate. Test file used:





This annoying feature with the zone identifier is not existing in Win2k 
afaik. The story began with WinXP and Win2k3 Server if I'm not mistaken.

regards

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[NoOp]

On 10/12/2009 04:14 PM, Martin Freitag wrote:
> Jens Hatlak schrieb:
>> On 10/12/2009 10:37 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:
>>> If you've ever had the mis-fortune to use Microsoft IE on windows,
>>> you'll notice every file you download is initially "blocked". It
>>> places a second NTFS stream on the file. I'd been using SeaMonkey 2.0b
>>> and everything was OK. Today I've installed RC1 and now my downloads
>>> are blocked - just like in IE.
>>
>> 
>>
>> SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't get the point even after reading
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504804
> Can someone summarize that in easy words? What are they planning to do 
> now concerning the zone-identifier? What kind of OS setting are going to 
> be "repected"? And will there be a GUI for configuration?
> I don't get it and that thing is already resolved fixed.
> Thanks
> 
> Martin

Nor do I.

@Gerry: what version of Windows? I have tested on both Win2KPro and
WinXPPro and cannot seem to replicate. Test file used:




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

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Martin Freitag]

Jens Hatlak schrieb:

On 10/12/2009 10:37 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:

If you've ever had the mis-fortune to use Microsoft IE on windows,
you'll notice every file you download is initially "blocked". It
places a second NTFS stream on the file. I'd been using SeaMonkey 2.0b
and everything was OK. Today I've installed RC1 and now my downloads
are blocked - just like in IE.




SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.


I'm afraid I don't get the point even after reading
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504804
Can someone summarize that in easy words? What are they planning to do 
now concerning the zone-identifier? What kind of OS setting are going to 
be "repected"? And will there be a GUI for configuration?

I don't get it and that thing is already resolved fixed.
Thanks

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Martin Freitag]

Gerry Hickman schrieb:

Jens Hatlak wrote:

On 10/12/2009 11:00 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:

I have the preference "Advanced : Automatically check for updates",
but does this mean the browser will actually update itself, or does it
just download the new installation file and then require manual
intervention?


You will be asked whether you want to download/install an update.


Thanks,

If you say you want to do both, does it update it without having to run
an installer?


It runs without a classic installer. It performs all file copy 
operations etc. after a single click (or two). Afterwards you just have 
to confirm the restart of SM afaik.

regards

Martin
--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 - Suddenly Downloads have an NTFS stream?? (like IE)

[Jens Hatlak]

On 10/12/2009 10:37 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:
If you've ever had the mis-fortune to use Microsoft IE on windows, 
you'll notice every file you download is initially "blocked". It places 
a second NTFS stream on the file. I'd been using SeaMonkey 2.0b and 
everything was OK. Today I've installed RC1 and now my downloads are 
blocked - just like in IE.




SeaMonkey 2.0 uses the same download backend as Firefox 3.5.

HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Gerry Hickman]

Jens Hatlak wrote:

On 10/12/2009 11:00 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:

I have the preference "Advanced : Automatically check for updates",
but does this mean the browser will actually update itself, or does it
just download the new installation file and then require manual
intervention?


You will be asked whether you want to download/install an update.


Thanks,

If you say you want to do both, does it update it without having to run 
an installer?


--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM2.0 RC1 Automatic Updates?

[Jens Hatlak]

On 10/12/2009 11:00 PM Gerry Hickman wrote:
I have the preference "Advanced : Automatically check for updates", but 
does this mean the browser will actually update itself, or does it just 
download the new installation file and then require manual intervention?


You will be asked whether you want to download/install an update.

HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak 
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker 
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey