What about using Send Page, copy/paste or just sending a link? A form where you could just put in an email address might be good.

As for speed, there are no hard facts, only statistics. And very dodgy statistics at that. Besides, rendering time isn't that long on most pages, so the time saved would be negligable (it would be a better investment for them to improve their internet connection speed so their employees could fill it up with big downloads).

Comparing page load times on different Mozilla versions is possible to automate (although it's not trivial) - comparing to IE is harder. However, tests of page rendering speeds have been done in the past, and IE has generally come out on top. Depends on the page and the machine and the connection and other stuff, but I don't think (even after these recent improvements), we're in a position to claim to be faster than IE.

And personally, I don't like "send this to a friend" features - they're open to abuse and generally crappily formatted and mis-used. I guess it could be done in a good way, but it'd be a significant amount of work. If you want to email someone some news, I think using "send link" and typing a couple of lines yourself is likely to be more influential than mozillazine sending them a boilerplate.

No, no and no, are the answers as far as I'm aware (I don't actually use Palm sync myself)

The improvements to Palm Sync are currently at the level of making it functional and avoiding data loss. And it's currently built on top of the Palm software for Windows - making it work on Linux would involve having some other program to do the work of actually talking to the handheld.

The fixes that have gone in include things like avoiding corruption and creation of duplicate items, avoiding cleaning out full address books by mistake, giving control over the direction of synchronisation.

The app suite is in maintenance mode, recall? That means that there's not much feature work going on.

I suspect this feature will go into the suite once someone cares enough to step up and port it, since there is currently no one I know of actively working on the suite's mailnews ui.

Not really... This would be a rather large document, and would take about a week or two to be out of date. So it would be rather high-maintenance.

If we find people willing to maintain it, it's worth considering the creation of such a thing, though.

I fully agree.

But there seems to be a issue in Navigator->Helper Applications. If you try to scroll the file types under Windows XP the UI starts to flicker and you cannot access file types currently out of ui visibility (srolling does not work).

You can't make Mozilla crash?!? A quick search through Bugzilla will solve that problem really quickly. If you're in the mood, though, could you try my testcase in bug 234062 (hit print preview and scroll down), and if it crashes post a quick comment to that effect with your OS and Talkback ID? Thanks.

outlook only

It's actually an Internet Explorer thing, so it will affect only email clients which use Internet Explorer's engine to display email, which includes Outlook and Outlook Express.

Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird don't use IE's rendering engine (of course), so they are not vulnerable.

Microsoft issued a patch for this flaw last October (which is at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-040.mspx ) - users who have installed the patch are also not vulnerable to this.

QUOTED FROM CIO TODAY >> Bagle exploits a flaw in Outlook, revealed in October of 2003, that allows a hacker to upload and execute a file on a user's PC without that user opening the file. Microsoft has issued a patch for the flaw in October, but users who have not updated their systems with this patch are at risk.

"This steps up the game," Sophos security analyst Chris Belthoff told NewsFactor. "The education part of protecting against viruses -- 'Don't click open attachments' -- got thrown out the window with these variants." <<

First off, the virus exploits Outlook only. Second, the hole it exploits had a patch released Oct. 2003. Third, this guy is an idiot. He believe that the "education part of protection against viruses" got thrown out the window. I think it's really a matter of making sure you're not being stupid and just updating your system. An even better resolution if you don't want to deal with the updates is to just not use the Outlook client, and opt for something else.

Typical media hype.

i use the suite everyday. i think it's actually a mistake to focus on firefox. we're spending time redoing the GUI when thats not necessary.

Yep. Of course the new version of firefox will benefit from about 80% of the changes in that "What's New" section, since it shares most of its code with the suite. But let's just keep pretending that the two are completely unrelated. The real world is such a dreary place, after all.

I'm waiting for the new version of Mozilla Suite. FireFox is fine, but I like the suite just as much - perhaps this will change by the time FF 1.0 is released.

Good one! Haha!

If the part that got reduced fall into the part that is common to both browsers you're correct. But if the 5% reduction is on code that is present only in the mozilla suite and not in firefox, firefox will stay with the same size. In fact considering that we (me at least) do not have any information to witch places of the code got reductions then I would assume that any place in the code has an equal probability of getting slim. This simple assumssion would cancel the fact that firefox is smaller and would render it probably also 5% smaller.

:-P

Yeah, that is a nice enhancement, but I had something similar in use for over a year but that was rejected on IRC.

Now, I can't even install MultiZilla with mozilla 1.7b. No troubles with a prior version of Mozilla. Something has obviously changed in this version, but I still fail to locate any documentation about the modifications.