Using the Seamonkey Data Manager, there are 5 types of data which can be
managed there: Cookies, Permissions, Preferences, Passwords and Storage.
This is about Permissions.
A few years ago there were three default Cookie settings for Firefox,
"Allow", "Allow for Se
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Enter the full address including the scheme e.g. https://www.my-bank.com
Or allow popups when they are served. Look at the status bar for the
yellow icon.
FRG
DoctorBill wrote:
I just changed to a Newer Compuker with Win 7 on it.
I am using the latest SM.
I go to
Enter the full address including the scheme e.g. https://www.my-bank.com
Or allow popups when they are served. Look at the status bar for the
yellow icon.
FRG
DoctorBill wrote:
I just changed to a Newer Compuker with Win 7 on it.
I am using the latest SM.
I go to my Credit Union web site
DoctorBill wrote:
I just changed to a Newer Compuker with Win 7 on it.
I am using the latest SM.
I go to my Credit Union web site and it uses Pop-Up windows for various
outputs. I went to SM Pop-Up manager to allow these Pop-Ups, but I
cannot get it to allow them
It keeps saying "the url
I just changed to a Newer Compuker with Win 7 on it.
I am using the latest SM.
I go to my Credit Union web site and it uses Pop-Up windows for various
outputs. I went to SM Pop-Up manager to allow these Pop-Ups, but I
cannot get it to allow them
It keeps saying "the url entered is not
1188348) which
is
fixed.
Due to the changes in the permissions api there might still be other bugs in
the
code. If you encounter one add it to bug 1188348. I will try to fix it (and
maybe
someone will check it in one day in the future).
FRG
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 13:45:34 +0100, A Williams wrote
mozilla-lists.mbou...@spamgourmet.com wrote:
A Williams - root@127.0.0.1 wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions li
A Williams - root@127.0.0.1 wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions listing and
discovered that quite a few
David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/30/2015 2:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
On 30/11/2015 3:34 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the
EE wrote:
A Williams wrote:
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions listing and
discovered that quite a few unwanted sites have the "Allow" setting.
So I changed the per
On 11/30/2015 2:47 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 30/11/2015 3:34 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
>>> I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
>>> setting for Cookies. Today I went thr
On 30/11/2015 3:34 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions listing and
discovered that quite a few unwanted sites have
I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions listing and
discovered that quite a few unwanted sites have the "Allow" setting.
So I changed the permissions to "Allow for Sess
On 11/29/2015 4:45 AM, A Williams wrote:
> I tend to give most "collateral damage" sites the "Allow for Session"
> setting for Cookies. Today I went through the permissions listing and
> discovered that quite a few unwanted sites have the "Allow" set
What are these entries for?
From the left top line SeaMonkey Preferences Privacy Security Cookies
All data types
There appears around 40 similar entries. Looking at any reveals
'moz-nullprincipal:(about 20 characters)
Can I assume they are set by SeaMonkey? If so what do they do?
Mark Blain wrote:
I've been trying to determine whether Seamonkey (2.25) can block
plugins for specific sites without Add-Ons.
I followed the recipe listed here to add Run Plugins permission for a
specific domain:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Data_Manager#Adding_permissions_for_a_site
... but when
EE nu...@bees.wax wrote in
news:i86dnwl1n-fiqdhonz2dnuvz_vqdn...@mozilla.org:
Mark Blain wrote:
I've been trying to determine whether Seamonkey (2.25) can block
plugins for specific sites without Add-Ons.
I followed the recipe listed here to add Run Plugins permission
for a specific
I've been trying to determine whether Seamonkey (2.25) can block
plugins for specific sites without Add-Ons.
I followed the recipe listed here to add Run Plugins permission for a
specific domain:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Data_Manager#Adding_permissions_for_a_site
... but when I set it to block
I am using SeaMonkey 2.22.1 on a Toshiba Satellite running Windows
XP-Home. I would like to be able to prevent web sites from placing
permissions on my system and/or have a quick way to eliminate them all
at once, similar to the way cookies can be handled. Right now I use the
data manager
Michael Ströder wrote:
NFN Smith wrote:
LMH wrote:
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as my
home page. When I open my browser, I get a prompt to set a cookie. I
select, allow for session, and check the use every time check box,
but every time I open my browser I
Under Permissions in the Data Manager, what are sts/use and sts/subd?
--
David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/
Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
On 12/17/2012 09:21 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
Under Permissions in the Data Manager, what are sts/use and sts/subd?
Strict-Transportation-Security
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607124
[Combine strict-transport-security
NFN Smith wrote:
LMH wrote:
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as my
home page. When I open my browser, I get a prompt to set a cookie. I
select, allow for session, and check the use every time check box,
but every time I open my browser I get the same prompt
LMH wrote:
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as my
home page. When I open my browser, I get a prompt to set a cookie. I
select, allow for session, and check the use every time check box,
but every time I open my browser I get the same prompt asking
, there will be an entry in the cookie manager showing this
rule. If I close SM and open again, the rule is gone and I have to
manually set the cookie permissions for google again.
This is absolutely new behavior. I have been using SM since it was
mozilla, and ever since session cookies were introduced, I
in the cookie manager showing this
rule. If I close SM and open again, the rule is gone and I have to
manually set the cookie permissions for google again.
This is absolutely new behavior. I have been using SM since it was
mozilla, and ever since session cookies were introduced, I have been
doing things more
, there will be an entry in the cookie manager showing this
rule. If I close SM and open again, the rule is gone and I have to
manually set the cookie permissions for google again.
This is absolutely new behavior. I have been using SM since it was
mozilla, and ever since session cookies were introduced, I have been
LMH wrote:
I'm leaning toward this being a bug in 2.14.
I'm also assuming a bug with cookies and permissions in 2.14. Things used to
work as expected until 2.13.2.
Ciao, Michael.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
present, even though the browser has been opened and closed.
Is it necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as
my home page. When I open my browser, I get a
prompt to set a cookie. I
cookies
are still present, even though the browser has been opened and closed.
Is it necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as
my home page. When I open my browser, I get a
prompt to set
opened and closed. Is it necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as my
home page. When I open my browser, I get a prompt to set a cookie. I
select, allow for session, and check
has been opened and closed. Is it
necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as my home
page. When I open my browser, I get a
prompt to set a cookie. I select, allow for session
, even though the browser has been opened and closed.
Is it necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as
my home page. When I open my browser, I get a
prompt to set a cookie. I select, allow
, even though the browser has been opened and closed.
Is it necessary to close the entire SM
application, or switch users, to create a new session?
Also, my cookie permissions seem to be disappearing. I use google as
my home page. When I open my browser, I get a
prompt to set a cookie. I select, allow
Rufus wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few certs.
At
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few certs.
At the very least, SeaMonkey should warn me
Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few certs.
At the very least, SeaMonkey
On 9/17/12 1:08 AM, Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few certs.
At the
On 9/17/12 6:06 AM, Daniel wrote:
Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few
Daniel wrote:
Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December 2008 from a Comodo reseller. I also have Go Daddy certs as
Untrusted. This is quite a few certs.
At the very least,
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote in message
news:avidnqu_zd1p3srnnz2dnuvz_gcdn...@mozilla.org...
On 9/17/12 1:08 AM, Desiree wrote:
I have had all Comodo and Comodo related certs as Untrusted (in all
browsers) since Eddy Nig was able to buy a cert for mozilla.com back in
December
MCBastos schrieb:
I have just seen this:
http://blog.mozilla.com/verdi/73/how-do-i-manage-website-permissions/
From the looks of it, it seems to have some overlap in functionality
with the Data Manager in Seamonkey. I know KaiRo offered the Data
Manager to Firefox, and since it's in trunk, I
I have just seen this:
http://blog.mozilla.com/verdi/73/how-do-i-manage-website-permissions/
From the looks of it, it seems to have some overlap in functionality
with the Data Manager in Seamonkey. I know KaiRo offered the Data
Manager to Firefox, and since it's in trunk, I guess the Permissions
Today I thought I'll try out the 'accept images from originating server
only' (although I already use adblock).
I opened my Twitter page, and all the user profile pics were blocked.
Found that they were coming from a0, a1, a2, a3.twimg.com
Now the problem is that the image permissions window
is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net, or
always allow *.twimg.com ?
This is bug #78104.
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78104
Now the problem is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net, or
always allow *.twimg.com ?
This is bug #78104.
Seehttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi
that they were coming from a0, a1, a2, a3.twimg.com
Now the problem is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net, or
always allow *.twimg.com ?
This is bug
Phillip Jones wrote:
(I find it funny that the Bugzilla page shows 291 warnings
using the HTML Validator extension)
I'm finding so far the only two pages that appear to be correct is
Mozilla's Home Page and my website.
There are plenty of non-bozos out there:
blocked.
Found that they were coming from a0, a1, a2, a3.twimg.com
Now the problem is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net, or
always allow *.twimg.com
the user profile pics were blocked.
Found that they were coming from a0, a1, a2, a3.twimg.com
Now the problem is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net
Now the problem is that the image permissions window forces you to
specify the full URL of each subdomain separately. Can we have wildcard
support in a future release, eg always block *.doubleclick.net, or
always allow *.twimg.com ?
This is bug #78104.
Seehttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi
51 matches
Mail list logo
