Mathwiz

Just tested, and it works; apparently mshtml.dll is a bit more "forgiving" than the IETF standards supposedly allow. Yes, but that's not really necessary. Due to an IE8 bug, the .woff font files aren't downloaded anyway. Take a look at this ProxHTTPSProxyMII log: [13:23] 021 [BP] "GET http://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/toolkit.css" 304 - [13:23] 022 [BP] "GET http://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/toolkit.css" 304 - [13:23] 027 [BP] "GET http://www.sky.com/assets/fonts/sky-medium.woff%22)%20format(%22woff" 301 0 [13:23] 028 [BP] "GET http://www.sky.com/assets/fonts/sky-regular.woff%22)%20format(%22woff" 301 0 [13:23] 026 [BP] "GET http://assets.sky.com/fonts/sky_medium.woff%22)%20format(%22woff%22),%20url(%22//assets.sky.com/fonts/sky_medium.ttf%22)%20format(%22truetype%22),%20url(%22//assets.sky.com/fonts/sky_medium.svg" 404 18 [13:23] 025 [BP] "GET http://assets.sky.com/fonts/sky_regular.woff%22)%20format(%22woff%22),%20url(%22//assets.sky.com/fonts/sky_regular.ttf%22)%20format(%22truetype%22),%20url(%22//assets.sky.com/fontssky_regular.svg" 404 18 [13:23] Using Proxy - http://127.0.0.1:8080 [13:23] 024 [P] "GET https://helpforum.sky.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif" 200 414 [13:23] Using Proxy - http://127.0.0.1:8080 [13:23] 029 [P] "GET https://www.sky.com/assets/fonts/sky-regular.woff%22)%20format(%22woff" 404 24353 [13:23] Using Proxy - http://127.0.0.1:8080 [13:23] 030 [P] "GET https://www.sky.com/assets/fonts/sky-medium.woff%22)%20format(%22woff" 404 24353 This is with <base href=http:> prepended to Dave-H's "OriginalSource.htm" file, so the protocol-relative URLs use the http: protocol. The first two lines show the toolkit.css being downloaded, twice. (The first download comes from the <link ...> tag in the header of the .htm file; the second comes from the @import rule near the bottom. Toolkit.css only needs to be downloaded once; the @import rule is redundant and unneeded in this particular email.) The next two lines show IE8 trying to download the .woff font files as result of the @font-face rules. Notice the extra garbage following the characters ".woff": %22)%20format(%22woff. This garbage is already preventing the files from downloading. The http: requests are first redirected to https: requests (server returns 301), then retried (see the text at the bottom), at which point the server returns a 404 error for each. Finally, IE8 tries to download both .woff files from a different server (assets.sky.com) specified within toolkit.css itself, and again gets 404 errors due to (a lot of) extra garbage that was added to each file name. In the case of this particular email, this would work because the style sheet was already downloaded by the <link ...> tag. But that may not be true of other emails, so that probably isn't the best option. All things considered, it appears prepending <base href=http:> is the safest option. It prevents the delay without breaking anything that wasn't already broken

They said they were using New Moon; can't be sure, but it seems likely that refers to @roytam1's fork. But then the wrong word was mentioned: WindowsXP. That pretty much cuts off any discussion with Tobin. "New Moon is not Pale Moon!" Geez, Matt, no one said it was; will you help me port my add-ons to PM or not? Does the add-on developer follow this thread? Tobin et al. may not be interested, but I bet folks here would be and many of us could help.

Checked an old Basilisk version and I believe you can restore auto-update of your WE add-ons by changing both prefs above to https://addons.mozilla.org/?component=aus&reqVersion=%REQ_VERSION%&id=%ITEM_ID%&version=%ITEM_VERSION%&maxAppVersion=%ITEM_MAXAPPVERSION%&status=%ITEM_STATUS%&appID=%APP_ID%&appVersion=%APP_VERSION%&appOS=%APP_OS%&appABI=%APP_ABI%&locale=%APP_LOCALE%&currentAppVersion=%CURRENT_APP_VERSION%&updateType=%UPDATE_TYPE%&compatMode=%COMPATIBILITY_MODE% (Note: the "Get Add-Ons" page will still go to the new Basilisk add-ons site.) It's not a perfect solution: since AMO has removed all legacy add-ons, those won't auto-update. But legacy add-ons aren't getting a lot of updates these days anyhow. The main exception is if you're using the legacy version of uBO like me; hopefully JustOff's uBO Updater should take care of that one.

At the risk of repeating myself: Perhaps these two threads should be merged, since they both seem to cover the same topic.

I like this idea; it seems to fix the delay with minimal fuss. But keep in mind the <base ...> tag must appear between the <head> ... </head> tags, so you can't just prefix it; you need to insert it in the proper place. And some emails may already have a <base ...> tag; you need to insert it only if it doesn't exist. Could scan up to </head> and insert a <base ...> tag in front if none were found

Your reversions seem to be working; thanks! All my add-ons still seem to work (both legacy and WE) at least on Win 7. Will test XP Monday. Hopefully this will be enough for the PM team and they'll finally stop throwing monkey wrenches into Basilisk's ability to support WE add-ons.

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.

@redfoxcz would need an SSE build of FF 48. That may be possible since 48 < 49, but IDK for sure

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

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.

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.

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.

Only needed for the update catalog, not for the regular WU or MU site. I should've made that clear....

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Serpent's own auto-update it will keep updating you to 1.17.4 (Baslisk Serpent 52) or the current WE version (Basilisk Serpent 55), so you just have to turn auto-update off. It may not be needed in PM/NM/Basilisk because those browsers only support legacy add-on versions anyhow, but it's useful in FF 52 ESR or Serpent, where some WE add-ons are also supported.

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.

Yes they're old. Did you pull them from the server for some reason?

Oops: two more just appeared today: Are either of those installed? I'm testing KB4018313 now. Edit: KB4018313 seems safe. But KB4462174 updates mso.dll so it may have the same problem as KB4462157.

Ironically, for me IE8 is the only browser where the Version Information window DID work. Didn't work in Basilisk, Opera 12.18, or IE 11 on Win 7.

Well just uninstall KB4462157 again. You don't need the Japanese calendar in Lithuania do you?