Hi. I recently installed a new PC and I noticed a couple of strange things. Some of the HTML and scripts in webmail aren't working.

For instance, when composing a message, if you enter an e-mail address it's supposed to "expand" it (check your address book, etc.) On my new system, that doesn't happen. When I check the HTML source, I see that the tags for the To, Cc, and Bcc boxes are different. The tag for To is:

<input type="text" id="to" size="55" tabindex="2" class="fixed" name="to" value="" />

whereas when I check it on another PC, it shows:

<input type="text" id="to" size="55" tabindex="2" class="fixed" name="to" value="" onchange="expandField(this)" /><span id="expandingto" style="color:red;visibility:hidden;">Expanding...</span>

(right, there is no SPAN tag on the new PC either)

I also think the main webmail page (in my case, the folders view) is not refreshing every 15 minutes like it does elsewhere.

As I mentioned in the subtitle, I am using IE7, WinXP Pro SP2 (latest patches), and a new installation of Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 with add-on pack (ad blocking). But I have the same NIS 2007 settings on my other Win XP Pro PC that is working fine. The only difference seems to be IE6 vs IE7.

Has anyone else run into anything like this?

Thanks!

I believe the expand problem was noticed as soon as IE7 was released and there should be at least one thread with that information. As this is a rather old version of Horde IMP in use and an upgrade has been tried a couple of times, I don't believe it will be fixed in the current version. Hitting the Expand Names button does work properly.

under IE7, XP-Pro here;

<TD align=left><INPUT class=fixed id=to tabIndex=2 size=55 name=to></TD>
<TD align=right><A onmouseover="window.status='Help'; return true;"
onclick="open_help_win('imp', 'compose-to'); return false;"
onmouseout="window.status='';"

and under FireFox 2.0.0.3, the following appears;

<td align="left"><input id="to" size="55" tabindex="2" class="fixed" name="to" value="" onchange="expandField(this)" type="text"><span id="expandingto" style="color: red; visibility: hidden;">Expanding...</span></td>
<td align="right"><a href="" onclick="open_help_win('imp', 'compose-to'); return false;" onmouseout="window.status='';"

Not only are these strings different between the browsers, but neither actually directly matches your sample either ....?????

One of the things I'm also wondering about right now is the possibility of your NIS getting into the middle of things and 'doing something' to the 'active part' of the scripting. For example, here the IE7 jumped up a 'warning' on the fact that there was a 'scri_pt running' and did I want to allow it .... FF jumped up an 'error message' that the field 'could not be expanded' .... both actions caised by me typing in some characters into the To: field, then trying to capture the 'source' code so I could see if the page was actually re-written with due to 'data input' .... the mouse action to try to select stuff causing the 'action' to attempt to 'expand' the field with the text input at that point .. which did not match anything usable (I have no addresses stored)

Just recently having been 'forced' into IE7 under XP, I'm still trying to srt out these new oddities myself, so I don't know how much of that factors in directly here .... for example, in my sample code capture above, I am confused over the 'commands' showing up in upper case and the lack of 'quote' marks around some variable names ..... worst case, the code involved actually jumps to different code sections based on the browser identity, each section written to work around each browser's idiosyncracies .... If this is the case, then that would probably lead one back to the mode where code was structured to work around IE6 issues that IE7 'fixed' but IE7 still 'looks like' IE6 to the browser-checking part of the codebase .....

Confused you yet? <g> Believe me, this has been going on since the initial releases of the IE7 code (not ignoring that FF keeps changing some things along the way also) .... but having recently read the initial plans for the upcoming IE8 version, and Microsoft's (alleged) plan of requiring some sort of 'agreement' signed up to by web developers in order to "take full advantage of IE8's new features" ..... it sure doesn't seem like the browsers wars are anywhere near finished .....

Thanks, folks.

I think it's probably IE7, too. Odd that my HTML is different from yours, Wazoo, but I think your IE7 doesn't expand either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no onchange function referenced. So same problem.

Maybe I'll check some other systems and see how it looks.

I was "forced" into IE7 also. Do you know of a way to back it out of a system and return to IE6?

Googling the phrase "revert to ie6" (without the quotes) seems to come up with about 85,500 hits. This would seem to be a popular inquiry. Suggest you look at a few of them in case there are pitfalls. But the first cab off the rank at the moment is How to uninstall IE7 and revert to IE6 "People have asked how to uninstall IE7 and revert to IE6, so here are the instructions."

Mocrosoft's 'soothing' words are that if one 'upgradede' to IE7, then there's the simple method of Start | Settings | Conteol Panel | Add / Remove Programs ....

The theory then goes that the IE7 install was "non-destructive" and that by selecting the Remove option, one will then 'roll back' to the previouslu installed IE6 .... as Garelf has noted, this simple set of instructions, also well documented on the Microsoft pages one would (should) have used to download the IE7 upgrade .. things have not been so easy for a lot of folks, dating back to the IE7 Beta release packages ....

On various systems that I had been asked to do this on ... I've had two that worked just as advertised ... the remainder .... IE7 removed, lots of things broken after that, and the only way to re-install IE6 was from a CD with those files already in plaee .... Worst case, find one of those free AOL CD's ... one can actually install IE6 from them by getting down to the appropeiate folder and invoking 'that' setup executable file ....

I will note that a couple of systems needed ecen more than that, but they were really screwed up by the time they made it to my door ....