Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Donations


Mathwiz last won the day on March 10 2020

Mathwiz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

598 Excellent


About Mathwiz

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Vanished on Friday 2020-03-13, from one day to the next.
    Worrying since awhile, hope you're okay...

  2. I certainly can't claim credit. Many of us were using "Moebius" as an informal name for what eventually became Serpent 55 long before either Matt or I suggested it as a formal brand name. The first use "Moebius" I can find on this forum was in the link to MCP's original UXP platform: So technically, I guess credit for the name should go to Moonchild (M.C. Straver)! Minor language note: The true spelling is Möbius, with an umlaut over the o. But the umlaut isn't used in English and some other languages (English has a "dieresis" which looks just like an umlaut; it's used in words like
  3. I think we both hit on it independently. Moebius was the code name for the post-FF 52, pre-Quantum rendering engine, or something like that, it's been used informally for Serpent 55, and it sounded like a cool name with lots of cool artwork opportunities. But I tend to agree with the suggestion that we just have one name for Serpent and append 52 or 55 as appropriate, in which case Moebius would have to go. Let's not make things more complicated than necessary. BTW, after I'd voted in several of the polls, I realized you can vote for more than one name. I think that's a cool option,
  4. I discovered (too late for most polls) that these polls are set up to let you choose more than one name! So if you like two or more names, go ahead and vote for all the ones you like. (Name with most votes still wins, of course.) Now, if only we Americans could have done that on Super Tuesday....
  5. I don't think @roytam1 was too crazy about RFox either. He objected to RoyFox, and RFox isn't that different.... RFox aside, I'd like to close this and just go with @TechnoRelic's last suggestions. It's past time to come to some sort of consensus and get to work!
  6. Couldn't confirm. EasyList shows up-to-date on mine. A few other filters I use showed errors from the last update attempt, but a manual update fixed them all. Not sure how often updates run, but IIRC most filters are considered "out of date" after a couple of days. So I'd guess it starts an update when the browser starts, as well as daily if you leave the browser open for extended periods.
  7. If you don't want to install Classic Theme Restorer, you can still suppress those warnings by following @VistaLover's instructions here:
  8. Aside from the WebRTC blocking feature I mentioned (which may not be an issue for you; it probably matters only to users behind, e.g., corporate firewalls), the only major change was Convert new shorthands back to legacy syntax when fetching filter lists using firefox-legacy (pull request by JustOff). Basically the syntax for filter lists was updated recently, so older uBO versions like 1.17.4 won't understand filters with the new syntax.
  9. What are you folks trying to accomplish here? Support for TLS 1.2 was added to XP (actually, POSReady '09) long ago by the above mentioned KB, and to IE8 specifically by KB4316682 (later cumulative IE8 updates should work too): TLS 1.2 support is limited though, because native support for ECC (certificates and ciphers) was never added to XP. If it's TLS 1.3 you want (without using ProxHTTPSProxyMII) on IE/Chrome, I'd bet you're going to have to perform some pretty major surgery. Might be better off just migrating to ReactOS, or just using a browser with native TLS 1.3 support lik
  10. And, done. Also: removed the SSUAO for YouTube to v.42, since it will stop working soon put in a general.useragent.override to version 60.9. Newer versions of MCP's UXP-based browsers (PM/NM 28, Basilisk/Serpent 52) are now reporting 68.9, but that causes more problems than it solves IMO. Updated version is here: As always, feel free to modify the myuseragents.js file (or override in about:config) as desired to fit your own browser and the Web sites you visit.
  11. Apologies if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not familiar with the User-agent: header. All browsers identify themselves to Web servers with a user-agent string that identifies the browser, version, and platform (OS). Unfortunately Web sites (such as bbc.co.uk) often just look at that string, rather than checking whether the browser actually has the capabilities the site needs. And they may not even be consistent from one page to the next at the same site! Thus, it's sometimes necessary to override the user-agent string (sometimes called "spoofing") to report a different version,
  12. uBO 1.17 and up are WebEx versions. 1.16.4.x is the last version using the legacy API, so it's the last version supported by Pale Moon, New Moon, and (official) Basilisk. Developer JustOff recently took over development of the legacy branch from Gorhill, so Gorhill now works exclusively on the WebEx branch and JustOff works on the legacy branch. Because of the split, is the newest uBO version that will run on FF 52 / Serpent. It's much newer than 1.17.4. (I think the latest WebEx version of uBO is now 1.24, but it won't run on FF 52 / Serpent. BTW, 1.18 will run on those browser
  13. I must be missing something. Wouldn't you expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Huh? What's not true? I'm not missing anything? You wouldn't expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Are we even speaking the same language here? You can do that if you wish, but to me, testing someone's browser issues by trying to log into a banking site with bogus credentials, probably repeatedly in order to test various possible workarounds, sounds like a pretty terrible idea. Most of us aren't particularly in
  14. I must be missing something. Wouldn't you expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Or are you saying the error appears whether the credentials are valid or not? If so, try this site: https://www.whatismybrowser.com/detect/what-is-my-user-agent. Try it with both the browser that works and the browser that doesn't, and post the results here. If the results are different, try a site-specific user-agent override; in the browser that doesn't work, set general.useragent.override.citi.com to the value returned by the browser that works. Then try logging
  • Create New...