Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Ken wrote: Hi guys, this is Ken, the op (original poster), clarifying. What I reported in my original post ('another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2') was IN ADDITION to other SM 2.2 woes that I and others had already reported in preceding threads. Anyway, the short of the matter is th

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

It's not a problem finding the install file. It's just not clear whether running the install file will install 2.1 in place of 2.2, or if there will be issues with transferring all the preferences, passwords, etc. to the "new" install of 2.1. Anyone have any experience with whether it is OK to

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

DrSlider wrote: Agree that Seamonkey 2.2 has NOT been a good step up. Multiple problems with email and don't care for the interface. For the first time, Chrome is looking better to me, but I love the integrated browser, email and composer functions. Here is the question: How can one "downgrade

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Agree that Seamonkey 2.2 has NOT been a good step up. Multiple problems with email and don't care for the interface. For the first time, Chrome is looking better to me, but I love the integrated browser, email and composer functions. Here is the question: How can one "downgrade" back down to 2.1

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Jim Taylor wrote: Perhaps a preference to always display the full date is also needed. Probably, or the existing one needs to apply in all cases. lists mail.ui.display.dateformat.today which can be set to 2, but that currently only seems to hav

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Ken wrote: Hi guys, this is Ken, the op (original poster), clarifying. What I reported in my original post ('another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2') was IN ADDITION to other SM 2.2 woes that I and others had already reported in preceding threads. Anyway, the short of the matter is that

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

WLS wrote: Jim Taylor wrote: WLS wrote: WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of corres

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Hi guys, this is Ken, the op (original poster), clarifying. What I reported in my original post ('another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2') was IN ADDITION to other SM 2.2 woes that I and others had already reported in preceding threads. Anyway, the short of the matter is that I have us

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Paul B. Gallagher wrote: WLS wrote: Jim Taylor wrote: WLS wrote: WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference late

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

WLS wrote: Jim Taylor wrote: WLS wrote: WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of corres

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Jim Taylor wrote: WLS wrote: WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of correspondence. A

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

WLS wrote: WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of correspondence. As for what S.M. 2.2

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

WLS wrote: Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of correspondence. As for what S.M. 2.2 has done to

Re: S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Ken wrote: Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of correspondence. As for what S.M. 2.2 has done to the working

S.M. 2.2 defects (e.g., in Mail)

Another less-than-brilliant thing with SM 2.2. My email print-outs no longer give the date at the top, just a time (e.g., '2.03 PM'). Some of us rely on the date being at the top for ease of reference later and for filing of correspondence. As for what S.M. 2.2 has done to the working of my