Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
problem too?

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote:
> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
> problem too?

No problem here (in The Netherlands).

In general, for issues like this: <https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/>

We also have a similar local site.

On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
> problem too?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>

When sites have load distribution and are trying to be globe-wide,
individual outages could quite easily happen for reasons we can't see.
My result is likely too far from you to be meaningful. But generally
speaking "they're not out of business at the moment".

*******

http://news.yahoo.com/ Working
(that's one of those infinite-scroll pages like an ntp.msn.com)

http://www.yahoo.com/ [redirects to country-specific page https://ca.yahoo.com/?p=us ]

The www part could be pointed at a content distribution network.

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: a7de0457831fd11f7.awsglobalaccelerator.com
Addresses: 13.248.158.7
76.223.84.192
Aliases: http://www.yahoo.com
rc.yahoo.com
global-accelerator.dns-rc.aws.oath.cloud

The main website has some IPs you can try pinging.

nslookup www.yahoo.com

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: me-ycpi-cf-www.g06.yahoodns.net
Addresses: 2001:4998:58:210::2001
2001:4998:58:210::2000
66.218.84.40
66.218.84.43
66.218.84.42
66.218.84.45
66.218.84.41
66.218.84.44
Aliases: www.yahoo.com

*******

whereas a site like https://www.forteinc.com
is 502 bad gateway
and you can calibrate
with that if you want.
Server could be down, no one to reboot.

Paul

On 16 Apr 2024 15:36:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote:
>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>> problem too?
>
> No problem here (in The Netherlands).
>
> In general, for issues like this: <https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/>

I did check there and it showed they were not down, but I am still not
able to connect even after clearing my cache.

Decided to check my Win 10 computer and my android phone. Both connect
just fine. Have they just stopped supporting Win 7?
>
> We also have a similar local site.

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:41:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>> problem too?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>
>When sites have load distribution and are trying to be globe-wide,
>individual outages could quite easily happen for reasons we can't see.
>My result is likely too far from you to be meaningful. But generally
>speaking "they're not out of business at the moment".
>
>*******
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/ Working
> (that's one of those infinite-scroll pages like an ntp.msn.com)
>
>http://www.yahoo.com/ [redirects to country-specific page https://ca.yahoo.com/?p=us ]

All of those Sites return the same message: "We can't connect to the
server at xxx.yahoo.com".
>
>Snip<

As I told Frank Slootweg, it appears to be Win 7 specific.

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On 4/16/2024 12:23 PM, jetjock wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:41:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>> problem too?
>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>
>> When sites have load distribution and are trying to be globe-wide,
>> individual outages could quite easily happen for reasons we can't see.
>> My result is likely too far from you to be meaningful. But generally
>> speaking "they're not out of business at the moment".
>>
>> *******
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/ Working
>> (that's one of those infinite-scroll pages like an ntp.msn.com)
>>
>> http://www.yahoo.com/ [redirects to country-specific page https://ca.yahoo.com/?p=us ]
>
> All of those Sites return the same message: "We can't connect to the
> server at xxx.yahoo.com".
>>
>> Snip<
>
> As I told Frank Slootweg, it appears to be Win 7 specific.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>

Run

nslookup some.dodgy.site

and DNS should list IPV4 and IPV6 addresses for you.

If you run this kind of command

ping 44.33.222.111

then you can try to get an IPV4 ping response. "Ping" is at a level that
the ends of the link do not care about WinXP, Win7, Win12. That command
works in Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, MacOS, Windows.

ping # Name is the same everywhere
nslookup # Name is the same everywhere
tracert # Can be tracert or traceroute, depending on length restrictions

Servers can be configured to not support ping. All of ICMP can be
turned off (not a good thing to do). Or just the ping component
of ICMP can be turned off. Both ping and tracert are doing "ping-like things"

C:\>ping 66.218.84.40

Pinging 66.218.84.40 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 66.218.84.40: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 66.218.84.40: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 66.218.84.40: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=54
Reply from 66.218.84.40: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 66.218.84.40:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 16ms, Average = 16ms

C:\>

The other thing you can try, low level, is traceroute

C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40

Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms [my ISP]
3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms [my ISP]
4 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms yahoo-xe1.torontointernetxchange.net [206.108.35.41]
5 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-2.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com [209.191.64.167]
6 16 ms 20 ms 16 ms et-9-0-8.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.227.139]
7 18 ms 15 ms 16 ms et-18-0-0.clr2-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.122.37]
8 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms lo0.fab1-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.123.228]
9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com [98.137.192.166]
10 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]

Trace complete.

C:\>

Almost none of the intermediate nodes, should match what yours shows.
The Internet is efficient and picks reasonably short paths, without
"going around the world twice" by accident :-)

Be patient with tracert. It takes time.

If both ping and tracert work, maybe it does not like your browser.
If that was the case, it *still* takes a few packets to make a white
screen and a "Done" at the bottom of the page. If the TCP/IP is broken,
then there won't be a "Done" and eventually, there will be a comms failure
message in the middle of the browser. Give it two minutes.

Paul

In message <739t1j55mhknc36oetmqdbtpp80hfa3iuu@4ax.com> at Tue, 16 Apr
2024 11:23:39, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> writes
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:41:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>> problem too?
[]
>All of those Sites return the same message: "We can't connect to the
>server at xxx.yahoo.com".
>>
>>Snip<
>
>As I told Frank Slootweg, it appears to be Win 7 specific.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

When you say Win 7, I presume you mean the browser(s) you are using
thereon - or does a ping fail? Hang on, I'll try one:

D:\videos\yt-dlp>ping yahoo.com

Pinging yahoo.com [74.6.143.26] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 74.6.143.26: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.6.143.26: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.6.143.26: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51
Reply from 74.6.143.26: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=51

Ping statistics for 74.6.143.26:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 86ms, Maximum = 86ms, Average = 86ms

D:\videos\yt-dlp>

So it pings from here (I'm in Kent, England, though they probably think
I'm wherever my ISP is). I've just tried it in a webpage, and it seems
to work (I got a cookie page, then a home page); that's with Windows
7-32, last compatible Chrome.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Remembrance of things past is not necessarily the remembrance of things as
they were. - Marcel Proust

jetjock wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2024 15:36:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote:
>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>> problem too?
>>
>> No problem here (in The Netherlands).
>>
>> In general, for issues like this: <https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/>
>
> I did check there and it showed they were not down, but I am still not
> able to connect even after clearing my cache.
>
> Decided to check my Win 10 computer and my android phone. Both connect
> just fine. Have they just stopped supporting Win 7?
>>
>> We also have a similar local site.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

Works fine on two W7's in Texas.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:38:12 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/16/2024 12:23 PM, jetjock wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:41:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
>>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>>> problem too?
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>Snip<
>
>The other thing you can try, low level, is traceroute
>
>C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40
>
>Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
> 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
> 2 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms [my ISP]
> 3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms [my ISP]
> 4 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms yahoo-xe1.torontointernetxchange.net [206.108.35.41]
> 5 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-2.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com [209.191.64.167]
> 6 16 ms 20 ms 16 ms et-9-0-8.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.227.139]
> 7 18 ms 15 ms 16 ms et-18-0-0.clr2-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.122.37]
> 8 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms lo0.fab1-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.123.228]
> 9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com [98.137.192.166]
> 10 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>
>Trace complete.
>
>C:\>
>
>Almost none of the intermediate nodes, should match what yours shows.
>The Internet is efficient and picks reasonably short paths, without
>"going around the world twice" by accident :-)
>
>Be patient with tracert. It takes time.
>
>If both ping and tracert work, maybe it does not like your browser.
>If that was the case, it *still* takes a few packets to make a white
>screen and a "Done" at the bottom of the page. If the TCP/IP is broken,
>then there won't be a "Done" and eventually, there will be a comms failure
>message in the middle of the browser. Give it two minutes.

I ran a tracert and it only took a few seconds. Here is what I got:
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Mike xxx>cd\

C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40

Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.17.46.2
2 18 ms 21 ms 2 ms
xe-200-0-76.mpr1.mem1.us.zip.zayo.com.zip.zayo.com [208.185.183.97]
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 21 ms 29 ms 29 ms pat2.che.yahoo.net [208.115.136.17]
6 41 ms 40 ms 39 ms ae-22.pat2.bfy.yahoo.com
[209.191.65.139]
7 43 ms 39 ms 39 ms ae-3.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com
[209.191.64.183]
8 38 ms 39 ms * et-0-1-4.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com
[74.6.227.137]
9 41 ms 38 ms 36 ms et-11-0-0.clr1-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com
[98.137.192.183]
10 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms lo0.fab7-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com
[74.6.123.222]
11 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com
[98.137.192.166]
12 35 ms 36 ms 36 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com
[66.218.84.40]

Trace complete.

C:\>

When I tried Yahoo in Chrome browser it gave an option to run network
diagnostic. Result said something about a unknown DNS which flashed a
memory in my brain about using DNS to block ads. There where settings
given there which I used as preferred servers. (This may not the whole
story as it was a while ago and memory of exact thread is foggy.)

So, I changed my DNS selection back to "Obtain DNS server
automatically" and suddenly Yahoo was back after a reboot.

Never being one to leave well enough alone, and always needing to know
"why", I changed the primary server back to 208.67.222.222 which is
apparently an open DNS server from Cisco, rebooted, and Yahoo is
continuing to work. The only change I can see is that there were two
server addresses listed under order of use before and now there is
only the 208 address. I think the secondary server was 9.9.9.9, but
really not sure.

All of this is just in way of info if anyone else may need to know
what happened. Thanks for trying to help!

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

In message <7kjt1jl5b1nqs3eruptkjpm5jtkpt3jr5v@4ax.com> at Tue, 16 Apr
2024 14:44:37, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> writes
[]
>memory in my brain about using DNS to block ads. There where settings
>given there which I used as preferred servers. (This may not the whole
>story as it was a while ago and memory of exact thread is foggy.)

Usually involves your hosts file - that's hosts, no extension. Mine
(W7-32) is at C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts; I have a shortcut
to
C:\Windows\System32\runas.exe /user:stone-pc\Administrator /savecred
"C:\Windows\notepad.exe C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts"

(all one line) for when I want to edit it. You put a line in it like
0.0.0.0 ad-emea.doubleclick.net
for any host that is a major source of ad.s; long lists of such hosts
can be downloaded. (Some people use 127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0; in XP
and before you could just use 0, but that seems not to work under 7.) If
that _is_ the answer to what happened to you, you obviously blocked
yahoo.com in this manner ...
>
>So, I changed my DNS selection back to "Obtain DNS server
>automatically" and suddenly Yahoo was back after a reboot.

.... though that suggests that isn't the case, as I think your local
hosts file superseded any DNS lookup.
[]
Have a look at your hosts file anyway (you can use Notepad).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ...
(first series, fit the second)

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:38:12 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>The other thing you can try, low level, is traceroute
>
>C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40
>
>Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
> 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
> 2 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms [my ISP]
> 3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms [my ISP]
> 4 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms yahoo-xe1.torontointernetxchange.net [206.108.35.41]
> 5 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-2.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com [209.191.64.167]
> 6 16 ms 20 ms 16 ms et-9-0-8.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.227.139]
> 7 18 ms 15 ms 16 ms et-18-0-0.clr2-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.122.37]
> 8 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms lo0.fab1-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.123.228]
> 9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com [98.137.192.166]
> 10 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>
>Trace complete.
>
>C:\>
>
>Almost none of the intermediate nodes, should match what yours shows.
>The Internet is efficient and picks reasonably short paths, without
>"going around the world twice" by accident :-)

OSPF usually works pretty well at finding and selecting the shortest path
between two points, where 'shortest' can be different from one moment to the
next.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Shortest_Path_First

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:26 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
wrote:

>Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>problem too?

I can't reach "yahoo.com" because the little bugger keeps redirecting
to "uk.yahoo.com".

That page takes *ages* to boot up but I'd expect this as it's crammed
full of graphics and scripts and my "security" ware is probably having
fits.

England, Win-7 box, FF 72 because it won't update much past 72.

J.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On 4/16/2024 3:44 PM, jetjock wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:38:12 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2024 12:23 PM, jetjock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:41:31 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2024 11:14 AM, jetjock wrote:
>>>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>>>> problem too?
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
>> Snip<
>>
>> The other thing you can try, low level, is traceroute
>>
>> C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40
>>
>> Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>>
>> 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1
>> 2 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms [my ISP]
>> 3 13 ms 12 ms 13 ms [my ISP]
>> 4 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms yahoo-xe1.torontointernetxchange.net [206.108.35.41]
>> 5 22 ms 19 ms 19 ms ae-2.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com [209.191.64.167]
>> 6 16 ms 20 ms 16 ms et-9-0-8.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.227.139]
>> 7 18 ms 15 ms 16 ms et-18-0-0.clr2-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.122.37]
>> 8 16 ms 16 ms 16 ms lo0.fab1-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com [74.6.123.228]
>> 9 16 ms 15 ms 16 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com [98.137.192.166]
>> 10 15 ms 15 ms 15 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
>>
>> Trace complete.
>>
>> C:\>
>>
>> Almost none of the intermediate nodes, should match what yours shows.
>> The Internet is efficient and picks reasonably short paths, without
>> "going around the world twice" by accident :-)
>>
>> Be patient with tracert. It takes time.
>>
>> If both ping and tracert work, maybe it does not like your browser.
>> If that was the case, it *still* takes a few packets to make a white
>> screen and a "Done" at the bottom of the page. If the TCP/IP is broken,
>> then there won't be a "Done" and eventually, there will be a comms failure
>> message in the middle of the browser. Give it two minutes.
>
> I ran a tracert and it only took a few seconds. Here is what I got:
> Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
> Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
> C:\Users\Mike xxx>cd\
>
> C:\>tracert 66.218.84.40
>
> Tracing route to o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com [66.218.84.40]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
> 1 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.17.46.2
> 2 18 ms 21 ms 2 ms
> xe-200-0-76.mpr1.mem1.us.zip.zayo.com.zip.zayo.com [208.185.183.97]
> 3 * * * Request timed out.
> 4 * * * Request timed out.
> 5 21 ms 29 ms 29 ms pat2.che.yahoo.net [208.115.136.17]
> 6 41 ms 40 ms 39 ms ae-22.pat2.bfy.yahoo.com
> [209.191.65.139]
> 7 43 ms 39 ms 39 ms ae-3.pat1.bfz.yahoo.com
> [209.191.64.183]
> 8 38 ms 39 ms * et-0-1-4.msr2.bf1.yahoo.com
> [74.6.227.137]
> 9 41 ms 38 ms 36 ms et-11-0-0.clr1-a-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com
> [98.137.192.183]
> 10 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms lo0.fab7-2-gdc.bf1.yahoo.com
> [74.6.123.222]
> 11 36 ms 36 ms 36 ms lo0.usw1-1-lba.bf1.yahoo.com
> [98.137.192.166]
> 12 35 ms 36 ms 36 ms o3.ycpi.vip.bf1.yahoo.com
> [66.218.84.40]
>
> Trace complete.
>
> C:\>
>
> When I tried Yahoo in Chrome browser it gave an option to run network
> diagnostic. Result said something about a unknown DNS which flashed a
> memory in my brain about using DNS to block ads. There where settings
> given there which I used as preferred servers. (This may not the whole
> story as it was a while ago and memory of exact thread is foggy.)
>
> So, I changed my DNS selection back to "Obtain DNS server
> automatically" and suddenly Yahoo was back after a reboot.
>
> Never being one to leave well enough alone, and always needing to know
> "why", I changed the primary server back to 208.67.222.222 which is
> apparently an open DNS server from Cisco, rebooted, and Yahoo is
> continuing to work. The only change I can see is that there were two
> server addresses listed under order of use before and now there is
> only the 208 address. I think the secondary server was 9.9.9.9, but
> really not sure.
>
> All of this is just in way of info if anyone else may need to know
> what happened. Thanks for trying to help!
>
> >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

maybe this free tool will help: <https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm>

On 4/16/2024 8:16 PM, John wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:26 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>> problem too?
>
> I can't reach "yahoo.com" because the little bugger keeps redirecting
> to "uk.yahoo.com".
>
> That page takes *ages* to boot up but I'd expect this as it's crammed
> full of graphics and scripts and my "security" ware is probably having
> fits.
>
> England, Win-7 box, FF 72 because it won't update much past 72.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.0/releasenotes/

"Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
"

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-windows-7-8-and-81-moving-extended-support

"Can I still browse safely with Firefox Windows 7, 8 and 8.1?

Mozilla is providing critical security updates through the Firefox ESR channel
up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.

After this, no security updates are provided and you are strongly encouraged
to move to a supported version of xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Linux."

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/

[You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)

Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/

Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe 54M 15-Apr-2024 13:09

Paul

In message <905u1j1ll90o0he5vvr51se4rg1mn4e3u9@4ax.com> at Wed, 17 Apr
2024 01:16:38, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:26 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>problem too?
>
> I can't reach "yahoo.com" because the little bugger keeps redirecting
>to "uk.yahoo.com".

Does for me too.
>
> That page takes *ages* to boot up but I'd expect this as it's crammed
>full of graphics and scripts and my "security" ware is probably having
>fits.

It _is_ script-sodden, but it loads in less than 5 seconds for me
(Windows 7-32, Chrome). I may have some of the source sites blocked in
my hosts file.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi Rescue"],
pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your life could
ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell Howard, in
Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013

In message <uvn9sq$1bnrf$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
> "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
> ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive
>important security updates.
> "

Yes, my Firefox seems to be 115.9.1 ESR.
[]
> up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
[]
> [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)
>
>Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change
>to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>
>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>
> Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe 54M 15-Apr-2024 13:09

https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
also seems to exist - i. e. both http and https.
>
> Paul

(I always thought you were in en-US land!)

You'd recommend the .exe rather than the .msi?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

On 4/17/2024 4:19 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <uvn9sq$1bnrf$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
> []
>>  "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
>>   ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
>>  "
>
> Yes, my Firefox seems to be 115.9.1 ESR.
> []
>>   up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
> []
>>   [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)
>>
>> Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>> I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>>
>> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>>
>>   Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe   54M    15-Apr-2024 13:09
>
> https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/ also seems to exist - i. e. both http and https.
>>
>>  Paul
>
> (I always thought you were in en-US land!)
>
> You'd recommend the .exe rather than the .msi?

Last sentence of his post said "England", which is why I picked out an "en-GB".

Either would work, but the average visitor is familiar
with the .exe and I think if you went to the regular product
page, the Download button there would give the .exe .

Paul

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/16/2024 8:16 PM, John wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:26 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>> problem too?
>>
>> I can't reach "yahoo.com" because the little bugger keeps redirecting
>> to "uk.yahoo.com".
>>
>> That page takes *ages* to boot up but I'd expect this as it's crammed
>> full of graphics and scripts and my "security" ware is probably having
>> fits.
>>
>> England, Win-7 box, FF 72 because it won't update much past 72.
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.0/releasenotes/
>
> "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
> ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
> "
>
>https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-windows-7-8-and-81-moving-extended-support
>
> "Can I still browse safely with Firefox Windows 7, 8 and 8.1?
>
> Mozilla is providing critical security updates through the Firefox ESR channel
> up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
>
> After this, no security updates are provided and you are strongly encouraged
> to move to a supported version of xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Linux."
>
>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/
>
> [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)
>
>Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>
>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>
> Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe 54M 15-Apr-2024 13:09

Thank you, sir. That's a lot of work done and I truly appreciate it.

I went on a bus ride today, so I'm hungry, cranky, and tired but I'll
have a go soon.

Thank you,

J.

>
> Paul

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 05:40:00 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/17/2024 4:19 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <uvn9sq$1bnrf$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>> []
>>>  "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
>>>   ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
>>>  "
>>
>> Yes, my Firefox seems to be 115.9.1 ESR.
>> []
>>>   up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
>> []
>>>   [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)
>>>
>>> Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>>> I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>>>
>>> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>>>
>>>   Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe   54M    15-Apr-2024 13:09
>>
>> https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/ also seems to exist - i. e. both http and https.
>>>
>>>  Paul
>>
>> (I always thought you were in en-US land!)
>>
>> You'd recommend the .exe rather than the .msi?
>
>Last sentence of his post said "England", which is why I picked out an "en-GB".

Yerp, I'm in the Land Of The Elder Gods and I speak and type in The
Original Language Of The Elder Gods and Fae, the One True Speech.

Mostly. Except when I'm lazy or when I forget.

>
>Either would work, but the average visitor is familiar
>with the .exe and I think if you went to the regular product
>page, the Download button there would give the .exe .

Thank you.

J.

>
> Paul

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:06:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <7kjt1jl5b1nqs3eruptkjpm5jtkpt3jr5v@4ax.com> at Tue, 16 Apr
>2024 14:44:37, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> writes
>[]
>>memory in my brain about using DNS to block ads. There where settings
>>given there which I used as preferred servers. (This may not the whole
>>story as it was a while ago and memory of exact thread is foggy.)
>
>Usually involves your hosts file - that's hosts, no extension. Mine
>(W7-32) is at C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts; I have a shortcut
>to
>C:\Windows\System32\runas.exe /user:stone-pc\Administrator /savecred
>"C:\Windows\notepad.exe C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts"
>
>(all one line) for when I want to edit it. You put a line in it like
>0.0.0.0 ad-emea.doubleclick.net
>for any host that is a major source of ad.s; long lists of such hosts
>can be downloaded. (Some people use 127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0; in XP
>and before you could just use 0, but that seems not to work under 7.) If
>that _is_ the answer to what happened to you, you obviously blocked
>yahoo.com in this manner ...

I do have several Sites blocked in my Hosts file, but nothing that
points to any Yahoo pages.
>>
>>So, I changed my DNS selection back to "Obtain DNS server
>>automatically" and suddenly Yahoo was back after a reboot.
>
>... though that suggests that isn't the case, as I think your local
>hosts file superseded any DNS lookup.
>[]
>Have a look at your hosts file anyway (you can use Notepad).

>>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

On 4/17/2024 10:41 AM, John wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2024 8:16 PM, John wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:14:26 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second day now that Yahoo.com is down. Just me, or others having a
>>>> problem too?
>>>
>>> I can't reach "yahoo.com" because the little bugger keeps redirecting
>>> to "uk.yahoo.com".
>>>
>>> That page takes *ages* to boot up but I'd expect this as it's crammed
>>> full of graphics and scripts and my "security" ware is probably having
>>> fits.
>>>
>>> England, Win-7 box, FF 72 because it won't update much past 72.
>>
>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.0/releasenotes/
>>
>> "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
>> ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
>> "
>>
>> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-windows-7-8-and-81-moving-extended-support
>>
>> "Can I still browse safely with Firefox Windows 7, 8 and 8.1?
>>
>> Mozilla is providing critical security updates through the Firefox ESR channel
>> up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
>>
>> After this, no security updates are provided and you are strongly encouraged
>> to move to a supported version of xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Linux."
>>
>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/
>>
>> [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)
>>
>> Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>> I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>>
>> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>>
>> Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe 54M 15-Apr-2024 13:09
>
> Thank you, sir. That's a lot of work done and I truly appreciate it.
>
> I went on a bus ride today, so I'm hungry, cranky, and tired but I'll
> have a go soon.
>
> Thank you,

I will be biking today to my doctors appointment.
I hope they have room for me in the tip, out back of the clinic :-)
So far, I'm only cranky, but the day is young.

Paul

In message <e3ov1jpcgvvq2ilpiea4dqdqknf4v6k1tr@4ax.com> at Wed, 17 Apr
2024 15:47:54, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 05:40:00 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/17/2024 4:19 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <uvn9sq$1bnrf$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 16 Apr 2024
>>>21:50:18, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
>>>> Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version.
[]
>>> (I always thought you were in en-US land!)
>>>
>>> You'd recommend the .exe rather than the .msi?
>>
>>Last sentence of his post said "England", which is why I picked out an
>>"en-GB".

Kind of you to find the UK version for him (us!).
>
> Yerp, I'm in the Land Of The Elder Gods and I speak and type in The
>Original Language Of The Elder Gods and Fae, the One True Speech.

(-: [Me too.]
>
> Mostly. Except when I'm lazy or when I forget.
>
>>
>>Either would work, but the average visitor is familiar
>>with the .exe and I think if you went to the regular product
>>page, the Download button there would give the .exe .

Yes, it's probably commoner. (I thought I ought to get it, as letting
Firefox update itself I'm not sure where it puts things, or even whether
it keeps them.)
>
> Thank you.
>
And from me.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond

Above all things, use your mind.
Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave.

On 16 Apr 2024 15:36:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> No problem here (in The Netherlands).
>
> In general, for issues like this: <https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/>
>
> We also have a similar local site.

I like this one:

<https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/>

--
s|b

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:41:00 +0100, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:50:18 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>wrote:

<<snipped>>

>>
>>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/115.0/releasenotes/
>>
>> "Users on Windows 7 and Windows 8 will automatically be migrated to the
>> ESR 115 version of Firefox so that they continue to receive important security updates.
>> "

Yeah, well that didn't go as well as it should have for some reason,
but ...

>>
>>https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-users-windows-7-8-and-81-moving-extended-support
>>
>> "Can I still browse safely with Firefox Windows 7, 8 and 8.1?
>>
>> Mozilla is providing critical security updates through the Firefox ESR channel
>> up until the end of ESR version 115, September 2024.
>>
>> After this, no security updates are provided and you are strongly encouraged
>> to move to a supported version of xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Linux."
>>
>>https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/enterprise/
>>
>> [You'd select an ESR version, to get the most mileage from Win7)

Well, I did that and it installed but it didn't suck the settings out
from my FFv72 so I binned it.

However ...

>>
>>Versus the regular pickup area here. This is the 32 bit version. Change to "win64" for the 64 bit one.
>>I would hope this would be fairly close to the previous page content.
>>
>>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/115.10.0esr/win32/en-GB/
>>
>> Firefox Setup 115.10.0esr.exe 54M 15-Apr-2024 13:09
>
> Thank you, sir. That's a lot of work done and I truly appreciate it.
>
> I went on a bus ride today, so I'm hungry, cranky, and tired but I'll
>have a go soon.

My definition of "soon" includes a period nanoseconds before the
Utimate Heatdeath Of The Cosmos, and possibly a bit later than that if
I'm distracted.

I did the 115-ESR upgrade. I dropped it into a different folder than
the one my FF72 version sits in so I could revert easily. It didn't
take up my old FF72 settings so I binned it. However, the old FF72 was
somehow upgraded in the background so I'm "up-to-date" on my Win-7
box.

I don't know how that happened and I don't particularly care.
Everything seems to work.

Thank you for all you help in this and over the years.

J.
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
>
>
>>
>> Paul

On 4/20/2024 1:51 PM, John wrote:

>
> My definition of "soon" includes a period nanoseconds before the
> Utimate Heatdeath Of The Cosmos, and possibly a bit later than that if
> I'm distracted.
>
> I did the 115-ESR upgrade. I dropped it into a different folder than
> the one my FF72 version sits in so I could revert easily. It didn't
> take up my old FF72 settings so I binned it. However, the old FF72 was
> somehow upgraded in the background so I'm "up-to-date" on my Win-7
> box.
>
> I don't know how that happened and I don't particularly care.
> Everything seems to work.
>
> Thank you for all you help in this and over the years.

The important thing, is to enjoy that supported version for the time being.

It's possible the ESR created a new profile and by using
the Profile Manager, you could select the old profile and
bring it forward. But as you say, it appears to have done that,
and Mozilla even claims to have been set up to do that. I wouldn't
have normally trusted them to pull off a stream change, but
they seem to have done it. (release, ESR, nightly are different
streams) They changed you from a Release copy to an ESR copy
(the difference being, the support policy).

The product has a tendency to puke out more Profiles
than one person really needs, and I hope what they're doing
is for a good cause :-) Sometimes, I can't figure out what they're
doing.

The funniest thing they ever did, is they put a 64-bit install
of Firefox, in the 32-bit program area, and I was looking
at this and going "No way! Nobody does this!". But... they did.
It was cleaned up on the next release. I guess the idea was,
not being Windows folks particularly, it was just "hey, here's
a folder we could use, this will solve our little problem". They
didn't care what the folder was for. "Not their problem"

So if you ever lose your car keys, its not in your pants pocket
or on the dresser, check C:\Program Files (x86) and your keys
will be there.

Paul