Hello again.

I just wanted to add a little extra information to what I provided earlier.

My DESKTOP computer has FF23.0.1 on it, which is fine because I rarely use it on the Internet, so I had intended to try UnMHT 8.1.0 with that to learn if the same effect as described above occurred. Unfortunately - and not unexpectedly - this was not available for FF23.0.1, but I was able to install UnMHT 6.5.5.1-signed. This time when opening MHT files from Windows explorer with Firefox, which was not already open, I did not find that two FF windows opened for the same file as was the case using UnMHT 8.1.0 in FF44-46.

I see for FF23.0.1 that in the registry (run Regedit) under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Applications\firefox.exe\shell\open\ there is no ddeexec sub-folder, just the command sub-folder which is also configured differently to FF46.0.1 (my current version). The ddeexec sub-folder, as noted in my previous post, is also the one that another user removed to successfully solve the problem I have described. I do not know, however, what version of FF he was using and so it may not work for me and might even cause more problems - which is why I am here searching for someone more knowledgeable than I of Firefox.

Thanks.

Hello again.

It appears that some people are reading my post, but since nobody has replied I tried a modified form of the apparent solution to my problem adopted by someone using the UnMHT forum. IT WORKED!

Whereas the questioner on the UnMHT forum deleted the ddeexec subfolder in the registry I simply renamed it to ddeexec.test; this should have ensured that the files it contained would not get used because the browser would not be able to find them, whilst at the same time I would not lose them if this did not solve the problem or if other problems resulted.

Thus, this path in the registry, HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Applications\firefox.exe\shell\open\ddeexec became:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Applications\firefox.exe\shell\open\ddeexec.test

If need be it would therefore be easy to restore the original sub-folder name and functioning. This done, with Firefox closed, I opened an MHT file and then closed Firefox again and repeated this procedure several times. Remember, as explained above, the same MHT file opened in two windows simultaneously ONLY if Firefox was closed BEFORE opening the file. Now, with the ddeexec folder disabled due to being renamed the MHT files each opened in only ONE window, as they should.

Next, I restored the original name of the subfolder and repeated the above steps; this time the error appeared once again - TWO windows opening per file.

I again disabled the ddeexec subfolder as before, changing the name to ddeexec.test and I have noticed no immediate problems with the browser as a result.

Although this solves my problems and appears to be a safe fix this problem will presumably continue to occur for anyone using UnMHT on with the latest Firefox, unless something is done to correct what appears to be a Firefox bug.

Ian.

I have been using UnMHT for many years.

1. My experience is that UnMHT doesn't render IE generated MHT files properly, if at all. And iirc, Mozilla Archive Format did a better job of rendering IE - MHT files, back in the days when I used it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mozilla-archive-format/ Been so long since I even used IE, that my recollection might be off a bit.

2. I always use File > Open File to view saved MHT files that were generated by UnMHT and iirc for that exact reason.

edmeister, hi.

I just wanted to ask you something. Given there appears to be every reason to believe that the issue discussed above points to a Firefox bug I wanted to report this as such to the relevant party; I looked at Bugzilla, but it says that the e-mail address of a contributor would be on view to everyone in the forum, which I would not want and I can find no other option: do you know of any other way of reporting a bug? I recall long ago reporting a bug from Firefox anonymously, but assuming my memory is not playing tricks on me that no longer seems available. Cheers.

Can't you just create a new email address just to use specifically for Bugzilla usage?

edmeister, hello.

I was already aware from the Bugzilla website that some people do as you suggest, but I already have three internet-based e-mail accounts that I use for different reasons and I so I do not wish to create another, even if the providers will allow it. In addition, I do not normally have any reason to use Bugzilla, but should it be useful for information purposes I can use it without being a member; in this case I simply wanted to make a one-off report, which, apart from any other reason, does not warrant opening a new e-mail account.

Evidently, ddeexec issues have been reported to Bugzilla quite a few times over the years, but not I think very recently and not this particular issue. I find it unfortunate that Bugzilla does not permit the same anonymity, and so security, as this forum. Thanks for replying anyway.

You have a problem with a 3rd party add-on, you comment that nobody responded to this thread, you're using an E-O-L operating system, and you're unwilling to do something as simple as creating a throw-away email account to be able to access Bugzilla and report what you think is a Bug in Firefox ... Makes me take a pause to reconsider the immense amount of time that I spend here trying to help other Firefox users who don't really want to participate in this community ...

edmeister, hello again.

Firstly, I came to this forum in search of someone who knew more about Firefox than I in the hope that they may be able to assist me; when I noted that nobody had yet replied to my post I did so NOT as a criticism of this forum or of anyone who had read my post, but to explain why I finally decided to attempt a solution myself. When I found that this worked I could have simply kept it to myself, but I reported the solution here in the hope that it might be of assistance to someone else; that I would say illustrates a desire to participate in this forum as I have many times over the years and indeed recently in respect of another thread: on occasion I have even been able to help solve someone's problem. In my previous responses to you edmeister I was nothing but courteous only to be attacked and insulted by you, and for what, making a personal choice? As I indicated, I have been using and contributing to this forum for some years and have enountered some very supportive people, not just of me, but of others too and I think from memory you have been among them; I am sorry to say though edmeister your response to me here does neither you nor this forum justice. I hope to use this forum for sometime to come and so I also hope that this apparent misunderstanding may be put behind us so we can move on; I for one am not one to harbour grudges and I hope the same is true of you.

Ian.F said

... In my previous responses to you edmeister I was nothing but courteous only to be attacked and insulted by you, and for what, making a personal choice? ...

Sorry that you took my response as an insult, but I don't suffer fools gladly when it comes to users having problems with add-ons, especially those using E-O-L operating systems and old, unsupported versions of Firefox; and the support request involves a 3rd party add-on that has multiple beta versions with fixes that may have addressed issues that a specific user might be having that brings about a support request here or a complaint here. "Operating System: Windows XP SP3" "My DESKTOP computer has FF23.0.1" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unmht/versions/beta

In conclusion, I don't carry grudges. But when it comes to a perception of anonymity on the internet or when the user is asking about something that is within their grasp save for a simple thing like an email address, my patience wears thin when I feel I am the "wronged party" and "push" my viewpoint over something as what I consider a silly objection to my advice.

BTW, using the Personal Message system here would have kept this personal discussion out the general forum threads.