Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out

ferratus writes "The Mozilla organization just released the second release candidate for the upcoming 1.0 due out in a few weeks. See the updated release note and remember to see the mirror list before hitting the main server."

Alternate Mail Handlers

[geoffsmith]

I'm dying for this feature. I don't install messenger, and I use sylpheed as my mail client. I'm sure lots of people are using other handlers like mutt, outlook, evolution, etc... In the old and netscape they had this API where you had to write a C program just to use an alternative handler. Seems pretty crazy to me. All I want is a text box like:

Mail Handler : sylpheed -to %email

Or something to that effect. Maybe a substitution for ?subject= as well.

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[Nicopa]

That's not the right conclusion. That measure is taken in addition to many others. And is designed to protect your profile from attacks to other software too!

Suppose your profile were stored in a fixed well-known location like c:/program files/mozilla/profiles. Suppose you still used outlook (eew!). A worm which gains access to reading files could easily get your profile! And there was no security bug in mozilla in that. So randomizing the directory avoids some kind of attacks. Everything counts!

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[alanjstr]

Make sure you properly configure Mozilla to use http 1.0 instead of 1.1. 1.1 is not compatible with Junkbuster. There's a release note about it.

Re:Bug list too big for prime time

[Jerf]

Perhaps they should just hide it and hope it goes away.

I wish I could show you the "known defect list" for the software on your computer. I don't care what it's running. It's long.

Software sucks. Mozilla less then most. And this is the big run up to 1.0, after all.

Do you expect perfection? Are you prepared to pay the millions of dollars it costs you? (And still sometimes lose the rocket to a small, small bug...?)

Re:Where's the criticism?

[asa]

This doesn't fix a security hole from RC1. RC1 didn't have that security hole (it was obscured by the entire feature not working). Mozilla 0.9.9 did have the hole and it's now fixed in RC2. But this is not a security release. This release didn't happen because of the security fix (you could get that in a nightly builds many many days ago). This was a planned release based on feedback from RC1. We fixed 270 bugs between RC1 and RC2 including the most frequently encountered crash and hang problems.

--Asa

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[fferreres]

You are again, free-riding. It's an ethical decision. I don't care being moderate to -100 for stating my personal view on this subject.

This guy EXPECTS mozilla to respect it's adkiller tools, yet he doesn't care to even help the sites he is looking at that base their revenue on ads.

If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok. If you are concerned about your privacy is ok. But if you mod me down (go ahead, i don't care) for merely expresing my point of view, then it speaks for the biasedness of moderators.

And beign pro open source and avid slashdot reader, i never trully realized how much this moderation hurts the discusions, putting away all the mess that _we don't want_ to read.

Also, i would like to ask to the guy that uses these adkillers and to the people that modded my initial post down if they are paying for a slashdot subscription (so that they don't see the ads). And if they are not paying it, if they are using it when they visit slashdot. And lastly, if they don't think it's at least one tiny bit unfair to "have the no-ad" version without paying what the site owners.

Eat my karma, i prefer my dignity.

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[isorox]

All ads, by my argument, are abusive. Just think how wonderful television could have been if they figured out some other way to fund it back in the day -- but they didn't, so now we have such an abundance of wonderful advertainment.

insightful? What a laod of crap. They did come up with another way of dunding TV back in the day, its called the BBC - no adverts, no product placment, enforce £100 a year.

Do you subscribe to all the websites you go to? Or are you a freeloader?

Oh and to the mods - if you mod me down I've got 47 other points to come back with - and I really dont care.

Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity....

[flacco]

Yeah, this is "security through obscurity" like my obscure password is "security through obscurity."

Please, take a nanosecond to think, or at least to ponder the definition of the term you use, before you post something.

Re:CSS rendering bug

[BZ]

The page uses no doctype, so is rendered in "quirks" mode by Mozilla instead of "standards" mode. Testing standards support in a mode that purposefully violates some standards to be compatible with existing content is silly...

That and the failure of any test of standards to validate in an HTML validator kinda casts doubt on the validity of the test...

Re:Does it respect proxies yet?

[awptic]

Junkbuster is broken, it doesn't implement HTTP/1.1 properly.. Unless you force mozilla to use HTTP/1.0, it will think the proxy server does keep-alive and will continue to request files in the full HTTP://www.somesite.com/whatever form, which would really be getting sent to the website, hence the reason you still see the banners, and most pages probably break too.
I'm actually working on a proxy server myself which resolves this problem, and is much faster than junkbuster (does keepalive and is multithreaded). check it out, the url is in my sig &lt/PLUG&gt

Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS!

[tempest303]

Agreed! And no restricting it to just namby-pamby cheesy looking cheap white shirts with flimsy looking text and a lame graphic - I want a QUALITY black shirt featuring that big, red "Commie" star on the front, with the lizard's head in the middle, and something simple on the back; maybe just "mozilla.org" in a kickass font or some such.

The world is riddled stupid looking cheap, white software promo t-shirts. Mozilla folks: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't do this. Charge the whole whopping $2-$3 you'll need to make it a NICE shirt.