V68 has completely destroyed my productivity.
I run Thunderbird on a number of machines, all setup the same way. I have (had) a number of really good AddOns, including Customise My Bird and others, that increased my speed and efficiency. For example, I use Signature Switch, and while I can get it to work on v68, the signature graphics are blocked every time I add a signature. I have to manually unblock them every single time, for every single email. This and many other simple efficiencies are now totally gone, and I'm stuck with a worse looking slower to use product. TBird upgrades are usually safe, but this one is a total disaster.
The recent update to v68 BROKE EVERYTHING, for no gain. I have tried to revert to a previous version, but the only way I can do that is to completely remove TBird, including 10 email accounts, and set it all up again from scratch. And YES I'VE ALREADY READ THE MANY EXISTING ARTICLES EXPLAINING HOW TO GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS VERSION. They do not work. As soon as TBird tries to access the v68 profile and data, it displays an error and no further progress can be made.
So my question is this:
HOW THE HELL DO WE CONVINCE MOZILLA DEVELOPERS TO AVOID THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOUR IN THE FUTURE?
The reason I use TBird is because it isn't like sw from Google and other big players. It doesn't rearrange itself every day with "cool new features" that might look good, but actually reduce functionality and slow me down. It has always been reliable and effective, and updates haven't caused damage. Until now.
Perhaps I need to understand the Mozilla funding model? Perhaps you guys have no choice but to follow in the footsteps of Microsoft and other providers who continuously destroy our productivity with "updates" that actually go backwards? Please help me understand.
Apologies, I am extremely frustrated, as all my email activities are now taking twice as long as they used to.
פתרון נבחר
I will go back to step one here and say it is the way the HTML is created.
When the HTML is created as discussed in the support article on Signatures the file is encoded and included in the HTML that forms the signature file https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/signatures
Your HTML is not being created by using save as in the composer, so it is specifying the raw files location and running into issues with the block on local files.
In researching this I found Bug 1367716 which contains a legacy addon written by Jorg K I think that allows you to set a preference, and it was wontfix based on that addon.
The change was introduced in Thunderbird V52. I noted in Bug 1362237 Comment one gives the security reasoning fairly succinctly and also makes it fairly clear that the signature switch addon author was informed of the changes. I would therefore assume that for the past few years the addon has been undertaking the functions to making the images work for you.
I personally would recommend modifying the signature to use the changed method, that way you are not relying on an addon to do the heavy lifting for you on a mail by mail basis.
Read this answer in context 👍 0כל התגובות (10)
If you install TB 60, and want to use a profile that's been created or modified by TB 68, launch TB with the --allow-downgrade switch, i.e. Windowskey+R and type thunderbird.exe --allow-downgrade
If you have more than one profile, add -p to start Profile Manager.
KarlGrimm said
I run Thunderbird on a number of machines, all setup the same way. I have (had) a number of really good AddOns, including Customise My Bird and others, that increased my speed and efficiency. For example, I use Signature Switch, and while I can get it to work on v68, the signature graphics are blocked every time I add a signature. I have to manually unblock them every single time, for every single email.
Steve, do you know if last sentence is a bug and whether there is a bug report that covers that it?
KarlGrimm said
The recent update to v68 BROKE EVERYTHING, for no gain. I have tried to revert to a previous version, but the only way I can do that is to completely remove TBird, including 10 email accounts, and set it all up again from scratch. And YES I'VE ALREADY READ THE MANY EXISTING ARTICLES EXPLAINING HOW TO GO BACK TO A PREVIOUS VERSION. They do not work. As soon as TBird tries to access the v68 profile and data, it displays an error and no further progress can be made.
It would be far more helpful if you supplied the error text.
KarlGrimm said
The reason I use TBird is because it isn't like sw from Google and other big players. It doesn't rearrange itself every day with "cool new features" that might look good, but actually reduce functionality and slow me down. It has always been reliable and effective, and updates haven't caused damage. Until now.
We don't rearrange every day, but it would be folly to assume that Thunderbird won't evolve - progress requires some change. But we do try to limit the impact.
As for add-ons, quite a few are still in the process of being updated and/or adopted by new authors (where the original author has abandoned).
Wayne Mery said
KarlGrimm saidI run Thunderbird on a number of machines, all setup the same way. I have (had) a number of really good AddOns, including Customise My Bird and others, that increased my speed and efficiency. For example, I use Signature Switch, and while I can get it to work on v68, the signature graphics are blocked every time I add a signature. I have to manually unblock them every single time, for every single email.Steve, do you know if last sentence is a bug and whether there is a bug report that covers that it?
I don't know if there's a bug, but it may depend on how the image is added to the signature. I believe the code has to be of the form file:///pathtoimage An image inserted in a signature created with the TB html-composer follows this format.
Gents, Thanks very much for you responses, and after being out of action for a few weeks, my original post is looking a bit unnecessarily grumpy. So let me start by saying, I remain a long term supported of Mozilla and Thunderbird - fantastic product, beats Outlook hands down for all sorts of reasons.
Ok, so now to the issues. I use Signature Switch to generate my signatures, and the htm files already point to images using "file:///pathtoimage" as suggested above. This is costing significant time wasting, if it can be fixed.
Customise My Bird was very handy, especially for several older relatives and friends I've got using Thunderbird, as it permitted me to make their Thunderbird look similar to what they have been used to for 20 years. But the last time I looked, Customise My Bird is not compatible with the latest Thunderbird, and the developer has abandoned further development. I encourage you to consider building these capabilities into TBird.
Exit Thunderbird. Check html signature file and confim it has correct setting for the image.
In the saved signature html file. do you see a line like this:
- img moz-do-not-send="false" - this is the one you want.
or this
- img moz-do-not-send="true"
If you see:
- img moz-do-not-send="true" -
edit the 'true' to say 'false' and save the file.
Start Thunderbird and test the image.
Not only is customizemybird not compatible the author has removed it https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/customizemybird/
Looking at the features as listed at https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-customize-thunderbird-with-customizemybird/
- several are cosmetic, and I don't see that they would be incorporated in future Thunderbird versions
- a few surely won't be supported in future thunderbirds because such customization capability isn't popular (among other reasons)
- remove status bar is natively supported
I know some users have strong feelings about ability to tweak UI, but they are truly are not that popular among the general user population, and thus not likely to gain traction amongst the thousands of issues that require developer attention.
As for signature switch, not my area of experience but I think it should work and Steve can help you get there. Hope that helps
Dear Toad-Hall: Thanks for the suggestion. There was no moz-do-not-send="true" in the html file, but I tried adding
moz-do-not-send="false"
to each img. But this did not help.
And Wayne, thanks for your input as well. I understand that development priority has to be given to issues of functionality.
The other thing I would mention is that unnecessary changes to the UI do cause enormous difficulties and stress for elderly users (I help a few). Customise My Bird enabled me to keep things looking very similar for these users. So it would be terrific if these major architecture revamps provided backwards compatibility for AddOns. Again, I understand that sometimes this is not possible.
Finally, the over emphasis on security is out of control, at Mozilla and everywhere else. I really don't need my local signature files blocked, nor any local file, ever. When I am composing an email, I know what I'm putting in there, and I don't need TBird giving me warnings.
פתרון נבחר
I will go back to step one here and say it is the way the HTML is created.
When the HTML is created as discussed in the support article on Signatures the file is encoded and included in the HTML that forms the signature file https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/signatures
Your HTML is not being created by using save as in the composer, so it is specifying the raw files location and running into issues with the block on local files.
In researching this I found Bug 1367716 which contains a legacy addon written by Jorg K I think that allows you to set a preference, and it was wontfix based on that addon.
The change was introduced in Thunderbird V52. I noted in Bug 1362237 Comment one gives the security reasoning fairly succinctly and also makes it fairly clear that the signature switch addon author was informed of the changes. I would therefore assume that for the past few years the addon has been undertaking the functions to making the images work for you.
I personally would recommend modifying the signature to use the changed method, that way you are not relying on an addon to do the heavy lifting for you on a mail by mail basis.
Hello Matt. I will try encoding the file in the HTML, as per the suggested link, and then post my results back here. Thanks.
(this will be in a few days, as my work PC is the only one with v68)