Signed or unsigned?

[Odin2]

Mozilla states on https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ad ... =inproduct:

Mozilla verifies and "signs" add-ons that follow a set of security guidelines. All add-ons hosted on addons.mozilla.org undergo this process in order to be signed.

Yet Mozilla blocked my installation of TidyRead as unsigned, even though the source was https://addons.mozilla.org/.

There's obviously an error someplace. Was the error to list TidyRead or to block it? How if at all could I follow up?

[TheVisitor]

TidyRead has not been updated for 2 years...With the upcoming removal of addons in favor of WebExtensions there is little hope of getting this to work.

[Odin2]

Thanks,TheVisitor, for your interesting opinion--but I remain curious about the apparent inconsistency.

[mightyglydd]

What inconsistency, it's DEAD, so's the dev's site, hasn't been updated in eight years.

[Odin2]

If it's seen to be "dead" or if not but is not signed, then in either case it should not be listed at all.

[mightyglydd]

You could say that about hundreds (thousands?) of Extensions and Themes...
Example A: 235 there. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... d-thunder/
AMO have a 'help forum', ask them. https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons/add-on-support
@ 'Signed' has about as much credence as a fake Muhammad Ali signature.

[Odin2]

Yes I could, and (depending on the respective facts) do.

[mightyglydd]

Don't you understand, AMO has been a poorly run/manipulated joke for years, to suit Mozilla's agenda they've even fiddled download numbers.
Any way, have fun trying to install antiques.

[Odin2]

Thanks, mightyglydd, your response although depressing does answer my question: the administrators lack competence.

[therube]

Just because an extension is signed (& ALL extensions on AMO should be signed, AFAIK), does not mean that it will necessarily run - or install, in a particular FF version.

That said, TidyRead is NOT signed.
I find that odd.
I'd ask AMO about that, if there is some mechanism to do so?