View Single Post
Old 8 Jan 2017, 03:59 AM   #24
BritTim
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting View Post
I really like and use "own" classical interface. What I mostly don't like in new interface is that I need dom storage to be activated to use it. And secondary there no possibility to use custom css, and thats classical interface killer feature. Beside, if you restricted fonts in browser, you will see utf code symbols in new interface. And thats ****ed up.
And yes , beside all effort fm try to put in new interface, it could be more secure then classic, since you don't need js at all.
More above they should consider to use Subresource integrity with js/css and Subresource integrity, even when they host things on same domain.
I liked and used the custom CSS feature. I can live without it, as most of the better browsers can operate with the stylish extension that allows much the same capabilities to be supported without Fastmail's help.

I appreciate that there can be font issues with some languages but, in all honesty, I have not seen this cause a practical problem for Fastmail in manstream browsers using the current interface. Thai, Chinese and Japanese on MS Windows (Chrome and Firefox) OSX (Safari) and Linux (Firefox) have all seemed fine. Do you have an example of failure to display foreign characters correctly with the current interface?

In the past, avoiding DOM storage and Javascript was important to me. In recent years, tremendous effort has gone into improving the security of these. I am now comfortable enabling them for selected trusted sites (Fastmail being one).

I would prefer it if classic was going to remain, but Fastmail has some legitimate reasons for retiring it.
BritTim is offline   Reply With Quote