On 4/26/19 7:20 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 00:03:
On 4/26/19 5:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:
Ray_Net wrote:
You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the color
is
WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 00:03:
On 4/26/19 5:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:
Ray_Net wrote:
You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the color
is BLACK.
I think that i found the s
On 4/26/19 5:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:
Ray_Net wrote:
You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the color
is BLACK.
I think that i found the solution - using about:config I do
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:
Ray_Net wrote:
You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the color
is BLACK.
I think that i found the solution - using about:config I do a search
for 99 and I found the
On 4/26/19 2:36 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Nice find. This issue should be reported to the web site owners to
sniff SM's UA correctly.
Ant, years ago, it was suggested that a better solution would be if,
rather then sniffing for "Firefox", 'They' sniffed for "Gecko" which
is/was used
Daniel wrote:
Nice find. This issue should be reported to the web site owners to
sniff SM's UA correctly.
Ant, years ago, it was suggested that a better solution would be if,
rather then sniffing for "Firefox", 'They' sniffed for "Gecko" which
is/was used in the User Agent of Firefox, SeaMonk
Ray_Net wrote:
You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the text-color
(changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the color is BLACK.
I think that i found the solution - using about:config I do a search for
99 and I found the "msgcompose.text_color" variable with "user
On 4/26/19 12:10 PM, Ray_Net wrote:
WaltS48 wrote on 26-04-19 16:05:
On 4/26/19 9:15 AM, Daniel wrote:
Ray_Net wrote on 26/04/2019 5:08 PM:
Normally I compose mail in HTML format.
All goes well except that the HTML signature:
beginning with:
is modified this way:
HOW to avoid thi
WaltS48 wrote on 26-04-19 16:05:
On 4/26/19 9:15 AM, Daniel wrote:
Ray_Net wrote on 26/04/2019 5:08 PM:
Normally I compose mail in HTML format.
All goes well except that the HTML signature:
beginning with:
is modified this way:
HOW to avoid this modification ?
Hmm!! I just checke
On 4/26/19 9:15 AM, Daniel wrote:
Ray_Net wrote on 26/04/2019 5:08 PM:
Normally I compose mail in HTML format.
All goes well except that the HTML signature:
beginning with:
is modified this way:
HOW to avoid this modification ?
Hmm!! I just checked and I, apparently, don't have th
Ray_Net wrote on 26/04/2019 5:08 PM:
Normally I compose mail in HTML format.
All goes well except that the HTML signature:
beginning with:
is modified this way:
HOW to avoid this modification ?
Hmm!! I just checked and I, apparently, don't have the word 'body'
anywhere in my about
What is needed mostly are helping hands. No volunteers/devs no SeaMonkey in
the long term. You can only do so much with money if you don't have the time
to support paid people.
The plan is to discontinue 2.49 after 2.49.5. 2.49.5 is more or less at ESR
60.2. Further backporting is too costly r
Normally I compose mail in HTML format.
All goes well except that the HTML signature:
beginning with:
is modified this way:
HOW to avoid this modification ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists
13 matches
Mail list logo