Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #331 > unrolled thread

Thunderbird 3.1.20

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-27 23:36 -0400
    Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Torsten Villnow <t.villnow@gmail.com> - 2021-04-28 08:48 +0200
      Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Wilf <wilf@postingx.uk> - 2021-04-28 17:39 +0100
    Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Teddy-Bears <Bears@invalid.com> - 2021-04-28 07:39 -0400
      Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Ken Whiton <kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL> - 2021-04-30 22:53 -0400
        Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-05-01 17:41 -0400
          Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Ken Whiton <kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL> - 2021-05-03 00:06 -0400
      Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-05-09 22:39 +0000
        Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-05-10 07:36 -0700
          Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-05-10 10:25 -0700
            Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-05-10 13:43 -0400
            Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-05-10 10:43 -0700
            Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-05-11 11:32 -0400
              Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-05-11 09:19 -0700
                Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-05-11 12:59 -0400
              Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-05-11 13:11 -0400
                Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-05-13 01:03 -0400
    Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Dave Royal<dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-28 11:58 +0000
      Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:59 -0400
    Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-04-28 08:19 -0400
    Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20 "David E. Ross" <not_me@not_there.invalid> - 2021-04-28 08:24 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#331 — Thunderbird 3.1.20

I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it 
as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal September 
Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to 
use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any significant 
risk to continue using this version?  Regular updates are annoying, and 
I quite honestly prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like 
the look of version 5 when it came out.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#335

Am 28.04.2021 um 05:36 schrieb Michael Trew:
> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it 
> as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal September 
> Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to 
> use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any significant 
> risk to continue using this version?  Regular updates are annoying, and 
> I quite honestly prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like 
> the look of version 5 when it came out.

Who knows, which and how many security flaws have been fixed since 2014? 
I won't use such an old program which regularly connects to and 
downloads data from the internet, even if appropriate caution is exercised.

And when it comes to new looks, adaption keeps me mentally flexible :-).

-- 
Torsten Villnow

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#353

On 28/04/2021 07:48, Torsten Villnow wrote:
> Am 28.04.2021 um 05:36 schrieb Michael Trew:
>> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it
>> as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal September
>> Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to
>> use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any significant
>> risk to continue using this version?  Regular updates are annoying, and
>> I quite honestly prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like
>> the look of version 5 when it came out.
> 
> Who knows, which and how many security flaws have been fixed since 2014?
> I won't use such an old program which regularly connects to and
> downloads data from the internet, even if appropriate caution is exercised.
> 
> And when it comes to new looks, adaption keeps me mentally flexible :-).
> 

I fully agree with you.  New looks, changes in facilities, or whatever, 
never worry me at all. I just embrace them and get on with it.

-- 
Wilf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#342

On 4/27/21 11:36 PM, this is what Michael Trew wrote:
> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal 
> September Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any 
> significant risk to continue using this version?  Regular updates are annoying, and I quite honestly prefer the interface to this version.  
> I did not like the look of version 5 when it came out.
This is a weighted question.  From version 3.x to ~80.x, some 70+ version changes is one hell of a jump.  Not sure why you pick version 5 as 
a jump point.

On the plus side, a lot of things are improved and security holes fixed and new things added.
On the minus, later versions have lost a lot of the add-ons you would be used to, but maybe not such a bad issue since 3 is SO old there may 
not have been many add-ons.

I've tried / seen about 10 or so different email programs.  I just don't see that much of a difference.  Might just be me, but what more can 
you do with email.  You need a list of folders (inbox,trash,sent etc), local folders to save mail, a way to see the headers and maybe a 
preview pane, and an address book.    TB 78 that I'm on has that 3 pane look.  Folders down the left, and 2 panes stacked on the right for 
headers and preview.  (there are over view arrangements of course).

https://tinyurl.com/4manskna
You can turn of the calendar on the right.

I even got my wife, a long long time Microsoft Office Outlook user to move over to TB.  Took her maybe a good week to be very comfortable 
with it.

-- 
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.1 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs
   *I collect teddy bears.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#389

*-* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021, at 07:39:30 -0400,
*-* In Article <s6bhhk$rv3$1@dont-email.me>,
*-* Teddy-Bears wrote
*-* About Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20

> On 4/27/21 11:36 PM, this is what Michael Trew wrote:
>> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I
>> use it as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as
>> Eternal September Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that
>> it's not secure or safe to use, but it seems to still work fine
>> for me.  Is there any significant risk to continue using this
>> version?  Regular updates are annoying, and I quite honestly
>> prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like the look
>> of version 5 when it came out.
> This is a weighted question.  From version 3.x to ~80.x, some 70+
> version changes is one hell of a jump.  Not sure why you pick
> version 5 as a jump point.

     He's not picking it as a current jump point.  He's citing
history.  TB 5 was the direct successor to TB 3.  There never was a TB
4, so his dislike of the look of TB 5 immediately following TB 3 was
probably the primary reason he stayed with TB 3 at the time, and has
for the intervening years.

     FWIW, I still use TB 1.5.0.14, so his TB 3 is modern by my
standards. :-D

                                        Ken Whiton
-- 
    FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399

On 4/30/2021 10:53 PM, Ken Whiton wrote:
> *-* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021, at 07:39:30 -0400,
> *-* In Article<s6bhhk$rv3$1@dont-email.me>,
> *-* Teddy-Bears wrote
> *-* About Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20
>
>> On 4/27/21 11:36 PM, this is what Michael Trew wrote:
>>> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I
>>> use it as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as
>>> Eternal September Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that
>>> it's not secure or safe to use, but it seems to still work fine
>>> for me.  Is there any significant risk to continue using this
>>> version?  Regular updates are annoying, and I quite honestly
>>> prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like the look
>>> of version 5 when it came out.
>> This is a weighted question.  From version 3.x to ~80.x, some 70+
>> version changes is one hell of a jump.  Not sure why you pick
>> version 5 as a jump point.
>
>       He's not picking it as a current jump point.  He's citing
> history.  TB 5 was the direct successor to TB 3.  There never was a TB
> 4, so his dislike of the look of TB 5 immediately following TB 3 was
> probably the primary reason he stayed with TB 3 at the time, and has
> for the intervening years.
>
>       FWIW, I still use TB 1.5.0.14, so his TB 3 is modern by my
> standards. :-D
>
>                                          Ken Whiton

Yep!  I assume they skipped 4th to align with the current FF version.

Out of curiosity, why did you stick with 1.5.x?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#417

*-* On Sat, 01 May 2021 17:41:42 -0400, at,
*-* In Article <s6khuf$8lj$1@dont-email.me>,
*-* Michael Trew wrote
*-* About Re: Thunderbird 3.1.20

> On 4/30/2021 10:53 PM, Ken Whiton wrote:
>> *-* Teddy-Bears wrote

>>> On 4/27/21 11:36 PM, this is what Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I
>>>> use it as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as
>>>> Eternal September Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that
>>>> it's not secure or safe to use, but it seems to still work fine
>>>> for me.  Is there any significant risk to continue using this
>>>> version?  Regular updates are annoying, and I quite honestly
>>>> prefer the interface to this version.  I did not like the look
>>>> of version 5 when it came out.
>>> This is a weighted question.  From version 3.x to ~80.x, some 70+
>>> version changes is one hell of a jump.  Not sure why you pick
>>> version 5 as a jump point.

>>       He's not picking it as a current jump point.  He's citing
>> history.  TB 5 was the direct successor to TB 3.  There never was a
>> TB 4, so his dislike of the look of TB 5 immediately following TB 3
>> was probably the primary reason he stayed with TB 3 at the time,
>> and has for the intervening years.

>>       FWIW, I still use TB 1.5.0.14, so his TB 3 is modern by my
>> standards. :-D

> Yep!  I assume they skipped 4th to align with the current FF version.

     Yes, that was the reason.

> Out of curiosity, why did you stick with 1.5.x?

     To tell you the truth, it was so long ago that I don't remember.

                                        Ken Whiton
-- 
    FIDO: 1:132/152
InterNet: kenwhiton@surfglobal.net.INVAL (remove the obvious to reply)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#436

Teddy-Bears <Bears@invalid.com> writes:

> I've tried / seen about 10 or so different email programs.  I just
> don't see that much of a difference.  Might just be me, but what more
> can you do with email.

The devil is in the details... If what you're saying were true, there
probably wouldn't be so many addons for Thunderbird.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#442

On 5/9/2021 6:07 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 5/9/21 7:20 PM, 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>> On 09/05/2021 23:39, Miguel Tomar Nogueira wrote:
>>> The devil is in the details... If what you're saying were true, there
>>> probably wouldn't be so many addons for Thunderbird.
>>
>> I don't have any add-Ons in Thunderbird or in Firefox.  So this is 
>> devil for you detailed in full.
>>
>> There are people who will install anything that is given to them free 
>> of charge.  That's how stupid they are.  You don't need any add-Ons in 
>> Firefox or Thunderbird. 


That's correct. You don't need any add-Ons in Firefox or Thunderbird. 
You also don't need Firefox or Thunderbird. Nor do you need a computer.

There are very few things in life that are needed.

But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you 
*want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc.  I have 
several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't 
*need* them, I like them very much.



-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447

On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>
> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc.  I have
> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't
> *need* them, I like them very much.

Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.

Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses 
otherwise unused space.  Win-win.

The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the 
main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't 
handle.  How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top 
of the browser window?

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   Why do men's hearts beat faster, their knees get weak, their throats
   become dry and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather
   clothing?
   Because she smells like a new truck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#452

On 5/10/21 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>
>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc.  I have
>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't
>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>
> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>
> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses 
> otherwise unused space.  Win-win.
>
> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is 
> the main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox 
> can't handle.  How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across 
> the top of the browser window?
>
I'm only using one and the tool tip appears when I hover my mouse over 
others, unless tabs have overflowed and are hidden.

-- 
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#453

On 5/10/2021 10:25 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> 
>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>
>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc.  I have
>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't
>> *need* them, I like them very much.
> 
> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.


I understand why you want it, but I would never use the word "need" for 
that.


> Most of the wide screen is useless, 


Because a wide screen *can* be useless, I keep my taskbar on the left 
side of the screen, not at the bottom. I also have several program open 
on each of my two screens, and doing that also uses up some of the 
available screen real estate.


> so VT is easier to read AND uses
> otherwise unused space.  Win-win.
> 
> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
> handle.  How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top
> of the browser window?


I couldn't. I normally have five tabs open--all at the top--and only 
occasionally have another two or three.




-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#469

On 5/10/2021 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>
>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc. I have
>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't
>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>
> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>
> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses
> otherwise unused space. Win-win.
>
> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
> handle. How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top of
> the browser window?
>

I disabled tabs in Firefox... they annoyed me.  I recall about 2010 when 
finally upgrading from IE 6, I never liked tabs.  I currently have 5 
browser windows open.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#471

On 5/11/2021 8:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 5/10/2021 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>>
>>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc. I have
>>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I don't
>>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>>
>> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>>
>> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses
>> otherwise unused space. Win-win.
>>
>> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
>> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
>> handle. How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top of
>> the browser window?
>>
> 
> I disabled tabs in Firefox... they annoyed me.  I recall about 2010 when
> finally upgrading from IE 6, I never liked tabs.  I currently have 5
> browser windows open.


A good example of "De gustibus..." We're all different and have 
different likes and dislikes. To me, tabs are almost a necessity.


-- 
Ken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#472

On 5/11/2021 12:19 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 5/11/2021 8:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 5/10/2021 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>>>
>>>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>>>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc. I have
>>>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I
>>>> don't
>>>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>>>
>>> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>>>
>>> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses
>>> otherwise unused space. Win-win.
>>>
>>> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
>>> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
>>> handle. How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top of
>>> the browser window?
>>>
>>
>> I disabled tabs in Firefox... they annoyed me. I recall about 2010 when
>> finally upgrading from IE 6, I never liked tabs. I currently have 5
>> browser windows open.
>
>
> A good example of "De gustibus..." We're all different and have
> different likes and dislikes. To me, tabs are almost a necessity.
>
>
That seems to be the general consensus, but I suppose that I go against 
the grain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#474

On 5/11/21 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 5/10/2021 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>>
>>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc. I have
>>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I 
>>> don't
>>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>>
>> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>>
>> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses
>> otherwise unused space. Win-win.
>>
>> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
>> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
>> handle. How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top of
>> the browser window?
>>
>
> I disabled tabs in Firefox... they annoyed me.  I recall about 2010 
> when finally upgrading from IE 6, I never liked tabs.  I currently 
> have 5 browser windows open.


I wonder what my 40 comics bookmarks would look like opened in separate 
windows.

-- 
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#495

On 5/11/2021 1:11 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 5/11/21 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 5/10/2021 1:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2021 07:36 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are very few things in life that are needed.
>>>>
>>>> But what you *need* is irrelevant. What you should have is what you
>>>> *want*--what you like, what makes things easier for you, etc. I have
>>>> several add-ons in FireFox, and they are all useful; even though I
>>>> don't
>>>> *need* them, I like them very much.
>>>
>>> Actually, I NEED vertical tabs in Firefox.
>>>
>>> Most of the wide screen is useless, so VT is easier to read AND uses
>>> otherwise unused space. Win-win.
>>>
>>> The same function in Chrome works differently and not as well and is the
>>> main reason I hate Chrome and use it only for stuff that Firefox can't
>>> handle. How can people stand to have 30 illegible tabs across the top of
>>> the browser window?
>>>
>>
>> I disabled tabs in Firefox... they annoyed me.  I recall about 2010
>> when finally upgrading from IE 6, I never liked tabs.  I currently
>> have 5 browser windows open.
>
>
> I wonder what my 40 comics bookmarks would look like opened in separate
> windows.
>

That would be terrible, especially with my 15" 20 year old LCD monitor, 
which has a resolution of 1024X768

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#343

On 27 Apr 2021 23:36:47 -0400 Michael Trew wrote:
>I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it 
>as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal September 
>Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to 
>use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any significant 
>risk to continue using this version?

I think the risk is quite small - assumingly you're not allowing 
javascript to run in html emails (can v3 run javascript?),  limit 
display to simple html, and don't use s/mime encryption. If you look 
at the security bugs that are fixed in Firefox/Gecko and inherited by 
Thunderbird, most of them are not exploitable on a non-script-enabled 
instance of TB. Does anybody know of one that is?

It presumably won't render some html emails correctly if they use newer 
html or css, but so long as it's readable that doesn't matter much.

I suspect it would be from vulnerabilities in TB itself, rather than 
Gecko, that you might be at risk. For example, maybe there was a bug, 
in mime-attachment handling say, that could be exploited to inject 
malware into Windows, and maybe that's been fixed since version 2. Was 
there such a bug, and if there was is anybody still exploiting it? 
No idea. And you're avoiding any such bugs introduced since :-)

You may not be able to use more recent and secure protocols for email 
account authentication and secure data transfer. But that depends on 
your email provider, and you can assess that risk yourself. One day 
you might find it won't connect.

Addons can have vulnerabilities too - possibly deliberate. I would 
look askance at any update.
-- 
(Remove numerics from email address)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#369

On 4/28/2021 7:58 AM, Dave Royal wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2021 23:36:47 -0400 Michael Trew wrote:
>> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use it
>> as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal September
>> Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure or safe to
>> use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any significant
>> risk to continue using this version?
>
> I think the risk is quite small - assumingly you're not allowing
> javascript to run in html emails (can v3 run javascript?),  limit
> display to simple html, and don't use s/mime encryption. If you look
> at the security bugs that are fixed in Firefox/Gecko and inherited by
> Thunderbird, most of them are not exploitable on a non-script-enabled
> instance of TB. Does anybody know of one that is?
>
> It presumably won't render some html emails correctly if they use newer
> html or css, but so long as it's readable that doesn't matter much.
>
> I suspect it would be from vulnerabilities in TB itself, rather than
> Gecko, that you might be at risk. For example, maybe there was a bug,
> in mime-attachment handling say, that could be exploited to inject
> malware into Windows, and maybe that's been fixed since version 2. Was
> there such a bug, and if there was is anybody still exploiting it?
> No idea. And you're avoiding any such bugs introduced since :-)
>
> You may not be able to use more recent and secure protocols for email
> account authentication and secure data transfer. But that depends on
> your email provider, and you can assess that risk yourself. One day
> you might find it won't connect.
>
> Addons can have vulnerabilities too - possibly deliberate. I would
> look askance at any update.

I honestly don't think I'm using any add-ons.  I have noticed that some 
newer e-mails won't render correctly, but it's usually junk chain 
e-mails that I don't care about, and I can still read the text part. 
Recently Yahoo! made me set up a special authentication key to continue 
using Yahoo! mail and my AT&T mail (which goes through Yahoo!).  My MSN 
e-mail hasn't had much hang up and still authenticates with the normal 
password.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#344

On 4/27/21 11:36 PM, Michael Trew wrote:
> I'm currently using Thunderbird 3.1.20 - have been for years.  I use 
> it as my primary e-mail client for 3 accounts as well as Eternal 
> September Usenet.  Some people have harassed me that it's not secure 
> or safe to use, but it seems to still work fine for me.  Is there any 
> significant risk to continue using this version? Regular updates are 
> annoying, and I quite honestly prefer the interface to this version.  
> I did not like the look of version 5 when it came out.

You can review all of the known security vulnerabilities at these links.

<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/thunderbird/>

<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/thunderbird-esr/>

-- 
OS: Fedora 33 Workstation - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web