Thanks Gils!
Forum: General

I have rechecked now with KM_74-24 too. No crash. security.tls.version.min is set to 1 as in KM_74-31. Wonder if the site will crash KM for other people as well.
Forum: Bugs

It doesn't crash for me.(Win7/KM_74-31) Did you try with the default settings? Maybe it's an extension that doesn't play nice.
Forum: Bugs

QuoteJamesD I also have to figure out how I will build a 3 by x array image where type is png. I have a new program that I need to load and try. If you refer to a transparent .PNG like Dorian posted, IMHO that shouldn't be a problem. Freeware will do it.
Forum: Development

Quotesiria But still the transparency IS supported for macro-created buttons too - just not on *your* machine. That's too weird, that it works on my age old machine and not on yours! What in the world is blocking it on yours??? Any setting? Any system stuff? I'm afraid it's not only "my" machine. Quoterodocop Alpha-transparency IS supported from sometime, BUT
Forum: Development

QuotesiriaWhat system do you have? As mentioned a couple of posts above, Win7. As far as I can remember transparent .BMP wasn't supported on toolbars set by macro in W2K neither. QuotesiriaMust admit I tried it not with proxy but my own macro, although I can't imagine that makes any difference. You don't need to set up a proxy in order to test that .kmm but you are right, it is
Forum: Development

QuotesiriaYogi, your two screenshots definitely show *different* images. Of course there are two different images. The first one is from the Aura skin with a transparent .bmp and the second one with a magic pink .bmp. QuotesiriaI'd suggest to just take your "black-macro-image" and insert exactly THIS via toolbars.cfg too for testing. Makes no sense to me. If inserted by too
Forum: Development

Quotesiria Wrong test ;-) The Aura Skin does contain some buttons that appear black in my KM1.6+98se, and others that appear transparent, although in IrfanView ALL bmps look black. There we have it: this can only mean some Aura buttons have partial transparency and some not. Please upload a transparent .bmp (16x16) from the Aura Skin or any other transparent .bmp which you consider to be OK
Forum: Development

@Siria Testing: Transparent .bmp taken from K-M's Aura-skin and used for a toolbar set by macro. Notice the black background! Looks probably the same as in IrfanView which AFAIK doesn't support transparency neither. The same toolbar set by macro with my .bmp with magic pink. If I transform any image to transparent .bmp (100% transparency) it will look with black backgrou
Forum: Development

Quotesiria Am surprised, never heard of that, but then, my own are always magenta anyway. So I just did a quick test now and replaced the image of one of my macro-created buttons with a renamed image copy of aura-mainbar. That has a black background, not magenta, so it does use an alpha channel. And it works! That black background should be transparent. Put that transparent .bmp on yout p
Forum: Development

Quoteguenter Quoterodocop (or at least bmp with alpha-channel) Is supported since 1.5.4 test versions. All Aura skins *.bmp have alpha-channel. It is not supported for toolbars set by macros. At least I had no success with transparent .bmp and the macro I use. Are you using a macro that can create a toolbar with transparent .bmp or can you at least give an example to test? Anyway it
Forum: Development

Quotesiria It keeps amazing me, most of the times someone mentions skins they declare to prefer Klassik! Don't be amazed Siria. The Klassic skin is my favorite too and I already have all buttons at the same size (priv_bar 16x16). QuoteJamesD If the skin is 30 but I don't provide a bmp for size 30, what will happen? IMHO, resizing a bmp to a smaller size shouldn't be
Forum: Development

Thanks Gils! I assume that most of the peole here like myself are only after the Finals. For those who might wonder why Gils is also posting the FlashPlayerPlugin_xx_x_x_xxx.exe too, because Fx portable needs both - the .dll and the .exe.
Forum: General

QuoteGrizz I do prefer K-Mel 74 but it runs a bit slow (on some sites and at odd times) Does Firefox run faster under same conditions? You could test with a portable version. I run FirefoxESR 31 and K-Meleon 74 under the same conditions (one and the same ad filter for both) and I can't see any difference in speed.
Forum: Bugs

QuoteJujuLand Hi, I don't know if it's due to last K-Meleon Setup or to a another install, but I have found an Adware named 'Level Quality Watcher' If you did download KM from this site then it is for sure not related to KM. 'Level Quality Watcher' is an adware that hit also people who have never heard about KM. It gets often bundeled with legit sowftware offer
Forum: Off-Topic

Is anybody of you using SL (S*I*L*V*E*R*L*I*G*H*T) as a portable plugin? I case yes, please refer to it simply as SL (because of Google bot). Edit: solved
Forum: General

Quotesiria Which is exactly what was to be demonstrated with my macro, LOL! The prefs and buttons are saying JS were allowed, but in reality JS-actions are still blocked on THIS page - so that setting is obviously lying. Or in case JS was allowed and I disable JS, the script is still working on THIS page. OK, I see now what you mean. The toggle doesn't has effect on the already loade
Forum: Development

QuoteJamesD The javascript only runs when the page was loaded with JS enabled. Toggling the JS after the page has loaded has no effect on my system which is Win 7(32 bit) using KM 74 g31 u1. Now I am at a loss. Testing with KM 74 g31 u1 on Win7 (64bit). What I can confirm is that testJS.kmm only runs when the page was loaded with JS enabled. What I can't confirm (I don't
Forum: Development

Quotesiria Still settings cannot be toggled after page load is finished (e.g. JS toggles). The checkmarks and buttons are wrongly showing the new state, but macros with JS only work if JS was already enabled during page load. Did you try with a clean profile? I'm only asking because toggling preferences works fine for me (Win7/KM 74_31) I can toggle JavaScript and cookies on the fly (pri
Forum: Development

Quoteguenter No I use pages where I need JS and Flash. Wirtschaft und Börse. Tickers... Chart Tools... I see. Take care of the badger, ... bears and bulls. Well, since you need scripting and flash for those sites and you visit them probably often, I'm afraid there's not much to do. My approach won't bring you much benefit if any, in this case. BTW, my approach with Pro
Forum: General

Thanks Dorian for fixing the right-click crash. So far everything is working fine on Win7.
Forum: Development

QuoteguenterNow the modern internet is useless when You constantly switch these off. I must be still living in the stone age of internet. None of my regularly visited sites require active content and scripting to be viewed. Neither my over 200 bookmarked sites. Some of them have also embedded flash objects which work only with flash plugin and scripting enabled. I'm not keen to watch thos
Forum: General

QuoteJohnHell I don't think so. Soon or later the headers have to be decompressed or decrypted to manage them with the browsers. Are you aware of a decent filtering proxy that can handle compressed headers? I have tested with SPDY enabled/disabled but didn't notice any difference in speed on sites I visit regularly. As far as I understand SPDY is a push protocol. It can be used to
Forum: General

Quoteguenter BTW. I wonder whether Yogy has tried to set permission for facebook & co to Zero (or was it 2 for block?) Nope. It wouldn't have made sense for me even to try making permissions for facebook & co in K-Meleon. If I want to block something, I do it with my dedicated filtering proxy or with Windows HOSTS file. This way it gets blocked for every client on my system. Be
Forum: General

This subject was elucidated and is for now ad acta for me. Once again, thanks for help. What I can tell for sure is that I had entries in the permissions DB which for sure were not hardcoded/preload. They were added automatically during surfing the web. From now on I will collect those entries (at least those I have no use for) and will feed my HOSTS file with them.
Forum: General

Quoteguenter There seems to be an missunderstanding No doubt Guenter there is a missunderstanding. I will try to make JohnHell's statement even more understandable by simplifying it: "But this one won't avoid to set permissions by K-Meleon on its own" As far as I can see, the only way to stop K-Meleon (or Firefox for this matter) to set permissions on its own, is to cri
Forum: General

Many thanks for the explanation! I suspected those permissions to be harmless, otherwise I would have set only read access to the file. I was just curious about the criteria used for being added to the db. As for connecting to servers through iframes, yes I knew and basically also block those iframes. For the time being, I do only an exception with K-Meleon so I can better test the browser.
Forum: General

Can someone please tell me what triggers the addition of hosts to the permissions database? As far as I can see dom.mozPermissionSettings.enabled is set to false by default and I didn't touch that setting. BTW, I'm neither Twitter nor Facebook user. Neither did I set up any site specific permission under "tools\privacy\permissions\". I can delete those entries but
Forum: General

Quoteguenter The test utterly failed to check whether the browser used the maximum available on the page. The test checks the encryption protocol used by the client: QuoteGood Your client is using TLS 1.2, the most modern version of the encryption protocol. The only reason the SSL client gets a "Bad" is because: QuoteYour client supports cipher suites that are known to be insecur
Forum: Development

Thanks Gils!
Forum: General