Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
NOD32 v2.70.39 XP SP2 IAttachmentExecute output posted.
Please take a look as I have quite a bit different outputs than most others who have posted.
That has been my opinion of this all along. This is simply a "feel good" feature to placate someone's sense of "doing something" without any practical, real benefit to anyone. It is included, I think, because IE7 does it, however IE7 doesn't take a serious performance hit implementing the feature. But, for "marketing" reasons, not usability reasons, the feature is added to Firefox so it can claim equity with IE. Thankfully it can easily be turned off.
Win7-64 Ultimate, Core2Duo E6700, 2GB PC3200 DDR ram, ATI HD4650 graphics.
If the Windows internet security settings do not permit the download of a file with IE then the security scan invoked by Minefield removes the file after it has been downloaded. IE7 doesn't do the download if security settings don't permit it. If you think the scan is an annoyance, try downloading a very large file only to have it removed after the download completes. If you want to prevent IE from downloading files then you have to prevent Minefield from doing the security scan if you want to download that file using Minefield. If you want Minefield to do the security scan then you have to allow IE to download that same file. Having to adjust Windows internet security settings to allow Minefield to download files seems counter-intuitive.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b4pre) Gecko/2008021204 Minefield/3.0b4pre
|::|windows 8 consumer preview x64|+|intel dh67bl b3 mobo|+|sandy bridge i7 2600 lga1155|+|ocz ssd sata III 120gb vertex drive|+|16gb ddr3 ram|:|
You should probably file a bug on that. At worst, Minefield should do the same as IE if it's somehow reliant on IE or Windows security settings.
There already is a bug. What is not clear from the bug report is what the intended behavior is. Should Firefox be using Windows internet
settings to control behavior? I would prefer not to have to allow IE to do something just so I can do it in Firefox.
Bug report https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=416683
Rom2, you shouldn't ask people to behave against the bugzilla etiquette. Commenting in bugs is frown upon except:
- you are giving a useful information to fix/reproduce a problem
- gives a patch
It is pointless, and the best way to make a specific bug ignored, to request people to comment in it.
Far better for discussion is to open a new thread here and launch the discussion here and linking to that thread in the bug.
teoli2003, there are plenty of bug reports in which comments are accepted. Developers aren't always able to have a view bigger than their keyboards and the monitors, and that's why other people's comments can be useful.
And there's also the voting mechanism, and I invited people to vote for that bug too. And I've added a link to this thread to the bug report, so we were thinking in a similar way.
There you go -- there was another bug report asking for a UI to turn off scanning, and both requests were denied. Their main argument: IE does the same thing. Great! Why don't they just repackage IE and be done with development of Firefox?
Comments are best served by the development newsgroups. A bug report with superfluous comments is neither helpful nor advantageous to getting that bug fixed.
Encouraging people to vote is fine - no issues with that whatsoever. In my experience, the votes do little if the developers aren't already interested in the bug.
Rom2, this is from the bugzilla etiquette:
Clearly you weren't asking people to bring something new but only to do "I want this too" comment.
Anyway it was quickly WONTFIXED as expected for bugs non following the etiquette.
Actually, many bugs get WONTFIXed for other reasons that have nothing to do with following the etiquette, e.g. devs don't need a particular feature. I also believe that there are saboteurs in Mozilla community.
Do you believe in the Easter bunny?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Mine has wandered off and I'm out looking for it.
I gotta say that this new 'feature' is a big nuisance. It seems completely unnecessary most of the time for A/V default configuration of scanning files that get written to disk. Is there a place we can go to vote on this thing? At the very least an option should be added to the options panel to turn it off. The about:config is just not good enough for non-programmers. I don't like big borther type software that makes assumptions like this. Please consider rethinking the implementation. Maybe a comprimise.. only do the scan IF real time protection is off for the client in use.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: smsmith and 1 guest