On 01/21/2013 11:38 AM, Béèm wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
...
>>
>> I located the file blocklist.xml in my profile. I opened it in an ASCII
>> editor (WordPad) and commented out six consecutive
>> blocks that referenced Java. I then changed
>> the properties of blocklist.xml to be read-only.
>>
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Wi
Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Win7 laptop, both with SM 2.15, because
SM h
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
> I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
> security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
> wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
> our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Win7 laptop, bo
Michael Gordon wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
>>> I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
>>> security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
>>> wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on eithe
On 1/18/13 11:27 AM, Rickles wrote [in part]:
> Begging your pardon, Mr Ross, but if Java weren't blocked, I wouldn't
> have posted the message in the first place. In point of fact, the
> plug-in is blocked, and the option to ENABLE it is not visible in the
> Add-Ons Mgr screen. The only butto
On 1/18/13 8:25 PM, question wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/18/13 11:27 AM, Rickles wrote:
>>> David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
> I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
> security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's on
Rickles wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower m
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 11:27 AM, Rickles wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and
On 1/18/13 11:27 AM, Rickles wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
>>> I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
>>> security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
>>> wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Wi
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Wi
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Wi
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Wi
On 1/18/13 9:51 AM, Rickles wrote:
> I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
> security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
> wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
> our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Win7 laptop, bo
I've seen the notices and recommendations about the various Java
security holes. I understand the concerns. But there's one site my
wife visits regularly which requires Java, and now won't work on either
our XP-SP3 tower mainframe or a Win7 laptop, both with SM 2.15, because
SM has taken it u
16 matches
Mail list logo
