Re: Weird response to mailto: link

On 8/8/2017 9:31 AM, David E. Ross wrote: On 8/8/2017 9:15 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: On 8/8/17 at 1:32 AM, Paul B. Gallagher created this epitome of digital genius: I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location

Re: Weird response to mailto: link

On 8/8/2017 9:15 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: > Ed Mullen wrote: >> On 8/8/17 at 1:32 AM, Paul B. Gallagher created this epitome of >> digital genius: >>> I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, >>> SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location about:blank and >>> then

Re: Weird response to mailto: link

Ed Mullen wrote: On 8/8/17 at 1:32 AM, Paul B. Gallagher created this epitome of digital genius: I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location about:blank and then immediately afterward opens a mail composition window with the target

Re: Weird response to mailto: link

On 8/8/17 at 1:32 AM, Paul B. Gallagher created this epitome of digital genius: I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location about:blank and then immediately afterward opens a mail composition window with the target email address in

Re: Weird response to mailto: link

On 8/7/2017 10:32 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location about:blank and then immediately afterward opens a mail composition window with the target email address in the To: field. Just me, or are

Weird response to mailto: link

I just noticed today that when I click on a mailto: link, SeaMonkey opens a browser window at the location about:blank and then immediately afterward opens a mail composition window with the target email address in the To: field. Just me, or are others seeing this? User agent: Mozilla/5.0

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

On 3/13/17, TCW <"."> wrote: > On 3/11/2017 2:04 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >> When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite >> websites: >> >>> I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing >>> several custom versions of their code for several

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

P. H. Madore wrote: So much this. *phm* WTF does that have to do with the price of beans? -- War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left. -- Paul B. Gallagher ___ support-seamonkey mailing list

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

On 3/11/2017 2:04 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite websites: I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing several custom versions of their code for several different browsers instead of just writing one

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

So much this. *phm* On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Lee wrote: > On 3/11/17, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: > > When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite > > websites: > > > >> I've never understood

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

On 3/11/17 3:04 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite websites: What's the site? I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing several custom versions of their code for several different browsers instead of

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

On 3/11/2017 3:04 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite websites: I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing several custom versions of their code for several different browsers instead of just writing one

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

On 3/11/17, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: > When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite > websites: > >> I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing >> several custom versions of their code for several different browsers

Re: W3C compliance: a novel response

Paul B. Gallagher wrote: When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite websites: I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing several custom versions of their code for several different browsers instead of just writing one W3C-compliant version, but

W3C compliance: a novel response

When I complained about bad browser sniffing at one of my favorite websites: I've never understood why web designers prefer to waste time writing several custom versions of their code for several different browsers instead of just writing one W3C-compliant version, but whatever. I'll just keep

Re: No Response?

Marie DeWees wrote: I downloaded Sea Monkey. Set up one email account and guess what? It has the same issues as Thunderbird. There are 145 messages from the same vendor. I am sure this is either a virus or a filter, but I do NOT know how to fix it and Thunderbird support is NOT helping me. I

Re: No Response?

Marie DeWees wrote: Hello, I have had issues with Thunderbird for months. Since I was getting no support in resolving these issues, I thought I would try Sea Monkey for both my browser and my email. I was happy to be able to continue using Mozilla. I downloaded Sea Monkey. Set up one email

Re: No Response?

On 06/30/2015 07:55 AM, Bill Spikowski wrote: Marie DeWees wrote: I downloaded Sea Monkey. Set up one email account and guess what? It has the same issues as Thunderbird. There are 145 messages from the same vendor. I am sure this is either a virus or a filter, but I do NOT know how to fix

No Response?

Hello, I have had issues with Thunderbird for months. Since I was getting no support in resolving these issues, I thought I would try Sea Monkey for both my browser and my email. I was happy to be able to continue using Mozilla. I downloaded Sea Monkey. Set up one email account and guess

Re: Wrong response re: Seamonkey

On 05/01/14 10:42, Paul B. Gallagher wrote: corsa...@fdn.com wrote: Hi; This is not in response to my query: === ... True enough, it wasn't, and it wasn't intended to be. If I had wanted to respond to your query, I would have done so in the original thread

Re: Wrong response re: Seamonkey

Hi; This is not in response to my query: === Ed Mullen wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: The point is, the user interface doesn't allow you to attach a file yourself; all you can do is point the file out to SM, and /the program/ will do the actual attaching

Re: Wrong response re: Seamonkey

hi, Wrong method you should post a NEW message instead of re-using a message from a thread corsa...@fdn.com wrote, On 04/01/2014 23:11: Hi; This is not in response to my query: === Ed Mullen wrote: Paul B. Gallagher wrote: The point is, the user

Re: Wrong response re: Seamonkey

corsa...@fdn.com wrote: Hi; This is not in response to my query: === ... True enough, it wasn't, and it wasn't intended to be. If I had wanted to respond to your query, I would have done so in the original thread where you posted it, not in this unrelated

Seamonkey 2.3 : No response unless/until mouse moved

Since being upgraded to Seamonkey 2.3 yesterday, I have started to notice some very odd (and completely new) behaviour -- Last night I was attempting to watch some streaming video, but it was taking an eternity to stream. Whilst waiting for something to happen, I used the mouse to interact with

Re: Seamonkey 2.3 : No response unless/until mouse moved

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Since being upgraded to Seamonkey 2.3 yesterday, I have started to notice some very odd (and completely new) behaviour -- I assume you have tried restarting SeaMonkey and/or your computer... -- David Wilkinson

Re: Seamonkey 2.3 : No response unless/until mouse moved

David Wilkinson wrote: Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Since being upgraded to Seamonkey 2.3 yesterday, I have started to notice some very odd (and completely new) behaviour -- I assume you have tried restarting SeaMonkey and/or your computer... No, I am deliberately leaving it

Re: Seamonkey 2.3 : No response unless/until mouse moved

A further demonstration of the problem, this time not requiring video : If I go to http://www.photos.for-charity.org.uk/gallery/seascapes-3261 and click on one of the thumbnails, Seamonkey shews no signs of activity. If I then move the mouse from the thumbnail and leave it over a blank

Re: Seamonkey 2.3 : No response unless/until mouse moved

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: No, I am deliberately leaving it in this aberrant state in case the developers would like some additional real-time feedback while the symptoms are still manifesting themselves. As there was no request from the developers for further feedback, I have

Revision response to Re: Tone when printing in SeaMonkey 2.0+

Art: Attempted the fix. Did not work on this end. Yes, versions of SM below 2.0 worked fine. This toning issue I have experienced in Thunderbird, Postbox etc all Mozilla based. Reed art wrote: On 4/21/10 8:02 AM, Reed wrote: When upgrading to SeaMonkey 2.0+. Now when I

Re: Revision response to Re: Tone when printing in SeaMonkey 2.0+

Reed, After more testing, you are correct. What does seem to work is to execute a command that has a defined keyboard equiv. once from the menu. Then subsequent commands via keyboard equiv's won't ring the system sound. It appears that even doing a Copy command via the menu will fix it. Not

Re: Revision response to Re: Tone when printing in SeaMonkey 2.0+

Art: Does not hold just like if you mouse up to the 'file' drop down box and pring by clicking--- no sound. After this action I can cmd-p anytime with no 'tone' Exit and launch. cmd-p will tone. Just annoying. Reed art wrote: Reed, After more testing, you are correct. What