Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

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. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mathwiz last won the day on January 10

Mathwiz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About Mathwiz

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I know, but that's not the issue @Dave-H was complaining about. And I don't know of any way to change IE8's behavior without breaking its normal handling of style sheets.
  2. @redfoxcz would need an SSE build of FF 48. That may be possible since 48 < 49, but IDK for sure
  3. That was broken by a buggy update back in 2014: Link: https://msfn.org/board/topic/171814-posready-2009-updates-ported-to-windows-xp-sp3-enu/?page=15&tab=comments#comment-1085089
  4. In FF or any of its forks, that's exactly what happens: if you enter the URL of a .css file, it gets displayed as text (and if you enter the URL of a .woff file, it gets saved to disk). But for some reason IE8 always seems to interpret .css files as styles, even if you just type the URL in yourself. That's not a problem for Eudora though; when displaying an email, any .css files it downloads are supposed to be interpreted as styles, otherwise the email wouldn't display properly! As for .woff files, IE8 does not support them (and doesn't even form the URL to download them correctly, due to a bug). If it can't download a supported .eot font file, it uses the fall-back font specified in the .css (happens to be Arial in sky.com's case). Since .woff files are unsupported, it would be reasonable to strip any @font-face rules specifying .woff files (or any font file other than .eot format, for that matter) from the HTML, so IE8 doesn't waste time trying to download them. But (I know I'm repeating myself) if one simply inserts "https:" in front of the //'s at the start of those three URLs at the end of the .htm file, it then opens without any long delays, even though (as can be seen from the ProxHTTPSProxyMII window) IE8 is still trying (and failing) to download those unsupported .woff files.
  5. I hope @jumper can come up with something! That's probably best. A .css file by itself would probably be just a blank screen in IE8. But if you open any of the HTML email files @Dave-H has posted, you can open them in IE8. If it's not your default browser (which it probably isn't these days), right-click the file and select "Open With..." and Internet Explorer should be listed as an option. When IE8 opens a .htm[l] file, there are often links in the file which cause it to download more stuff from the Internet, such as .css files linked in the .htm[l] file. I use ProxHTTPSProxyMII in "debug" mode to monitor what it's doing. Here are the config.ini settings I use: [GENERAL] ... LogLevel = DEBUG ### Bypass Proxomitron and the Rear Server, Proxy setting still effective ### This section supports URL matching [BYPASS URL] http://* ... An http: request will then look something like this: [08:25] 032 [BP] "GET http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate" 301 167 (The [BP] stands for "Bypass Proxy") ... while an https: request will look something like this: [10:53] 006 [P] "GET https://otm.xpo.com/images/mail/xpo_logo.gif" 200 2256 (The [P] stands for Proxy, of course) The two numbers at the end are the server's response code and the length of the data returned. If IE8 pauses, but you don't see either of the above, it must be attempting a protocol other than http(s), such as file:. Unfortunately I know of no way to proxy these requests; otherwise it'd be a simple matter of failing them immediately instead of having to wait for them to time out.
  6. AFAICS everything is OK, except that one and Office 2010 update KB4462174. I was also forced to hide KB4486463, but only because MU kept offering it even though it doesn't apply to my single-core VM. AFAIK the update itself is fine although you may need to install it manually with /overwriteoem.
  7. Only needed for the update catalog, not for the regular WU or MU site. I should've made that clear....
  8. Mathwiz

    Newest Adobe Flash and Shockwave, and Java, too!

    To clarify, it works fine now; as @bluebolt pointed out, Adobe finally fixed the thing. It didn't work last month, or for several months before, on most browsers on either XP or Win 7. At least not for me; I guess not for @bluebolt either. The only exception for me where it did work before this month was IE8!
  9. I had to add the following lines to config.ini in ProxHTTPSProxyMII: [SSL No-Verify] www.update.microsoft.com download.windowsupdate.com Download.windowsupdate.com is using a security certificate that doesn't specify download.windowsupdate.com as a valid domain for the certificate
  10. I'm afraid I'm having problems with KB4486463. Ntkrnlpa.exe is as v. 5.1.2600.7581, but so is ntoskrnl.exe. My XP is on a VM with a single processor core assigned to it, so those version numbers may be correct for single-core; I don't know for sure. But MU keeps offering me the update no matter how often I install, even if I install the update manually with the /overwriteoem switch.
  11. One problem introduced by the PM team's change is that Basilisk will will now accept add-ons that won't work anymore since it identifies as 52.9.something. So to keep Basilisk from auto-updating legacy add-ons to now-incompatible WE add-ons, the PM team changed the "get add-ons" site from AMO to a new one they're setting up (not ready yet) for Basilisk: http://addons.basilisk-browser.org. But @roytam1's builds retain Basilisk's original WE support , so the change to "get add-ons" keeps any WE add-ons from auto-updating properly. But I think this can be fixed by just changing these about:config prefs: extensions.update.background.url and extensions.update.url, back to addons.mozilla.org.
  12. That sort of sounds like what Google is saying about the API that uBO uses. Of course, restricting that API happens to benefit Google financially, so there's reason to distrust Google on that. But I can't see how removing WE APIs would benefit the PM team. So I have to take MC at his word that he at least believes that. Which makes me wonder: does he have a point? Could a malicious WE add-on do more damage than a malicious legacy add-on? Seems unlikely, but I don't know enough to say for sure. Edit: Even if MC is right, I'd still prefer to take my chances. Just make WE a Boolean in about:config and let users decide for themselves; I wouldn't force my own paranoia on everyone else. (BTW, looks like Schmaif made the same point on PM's forum.) Edit 2: MC's post on the question is quite vague: Point 1 seems to be "we don't intend to expand WEs because we think doing so is unnecessary;" that's fine, but it hardly seems like a reason to remove them. Just leave them as they are. Point 2 is, you can "steal browser data through WEs." But is there data you can steal through WEs that you can't steal through legacy APIs? And my previous comment still stands, in any case: let end-users decide. Default it to off but if folks are willing to take their chances, let them turn it on. The benefits, although limited, still seem to outweigh the risks to me. Point 3 does make a bit of sense to me: even if they never expand WE functionality, it would be irresponsible not to address and fix security bugs in the existing APIs as they are identified. But I can't imagine that implementing security patches to the limited WE APIs in FF 52.9 and Basilisk has been a significant burden to the PM team. Points 4 and 5 seem merely to expand on point 1: it's not practical to expand WEs given the XUL code base, and it's not necessary anyway because the legacy APIs provide all the same functionality. To be blunt, these don't seem like compelling reasons to remove the existing WE functionality, even when taken all together.
  13. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that they're trying everything they can to, uh, "encourage" add-on developers to maintain legacy add-ons, since PM/NM doesn't support WE at all, and the Basilisk support they keep trying to remove is limited. If that's the explanation, though, I think it's a losing battle. Add-on developers aren't going to start maintaining their legacy code again just because of Basilisk, so this would just make Basilisk a less useful FF 52 fork. @roytam1 is correct to revert these changes. It seems unlikely, given how "ideological" MC et al. can be, but maybe they'll figure that out one day, and put the limited WE code from FF 52 back in to not only Basilisk but also PM.
  14. I don't think that was the problem. I tried the links from home and they worked fine. They just don't work from the office. So it must have something to do with how I have Basilisk set up at the office. (Oddly, I can download the browser .7z files from the office just fine.) Edit: Figured it out! The links didn't match the link text! Weird. I finally managed to edit the links to work correctly. Anyway, as long as they work from at least one place, I guess I'm OK. Sorry I bothered you.... I think the idea is, it's supposed to update you to the next legacy version whenever gorhill releases one. If you just use Basilisk's own auto-update it will keep updating you to 1.17.4 (Baslisk 52) or the current WE version (Basilisk 55), so you have to turn auto-update off in Basilisk.
  15. Thanks. I never could get version 1.6.5 to work; I just had to check and update uBO manually. I hope this version works better.