Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

Print preview no longer available from the inbox message listing

  • 23 replies
  • 2 have this problem
  • 83 views
  • Last reply by Toad-Hall

more options

Before this latest update i could go to the list of messages in my inbox, rigth click on a message and selecte print preview, i was using this feature to avoid opening emails that i was not sure if it was spam or something that i would be interested on. The option is no longer available with Thunderbird 91.1.1 (64-bit), what happen, why this feature was removed? Programming team running amok again? or QA team sleeping at the wheel? Please put back that option thanks

All Replies (20)

more options

Print preview appears when Print is selected, as there is no longer a separate command.

Helpful?

more options

yes sir i know that however you can no longer select a message from the message listing right click and select print you have to open it first which defeats the purpose of how i was using it. sir

Helpful?

more options

A message can't be previewed unless it's opened, and for the same reason, Print in the context menu or File menu is greyed out until a message is opened. There is no such thing as a 'preview' of an unopened message., despite the belief that many users maintain.

Helpful?

more options

Pardon me sir, as i stated above in the last version before this update, at least in Windows, you could go to the message listing, right click on a message and one of the options in the selection window that open was print preview; which you could then select, (whether Thunderbird open it as part of the print preview function i do not know), and view message contents. You can easily verify this by installing the previous version in your machine and confirm this sir. thanks

Helpful?

more options

I realize that the preview was available in the TB 78 context menu, even for messages marked as unread, but the messages are definitely opened, if not read, in order to show the 'preview'. The only difference now is that 'print preview' is only available after a message has been read.

Helpful?

more options

Thank you sir for acknowledging the option was there in the previous version. The question remains why it was removed? A question for who at Mozilla? thanks

Helpful?

more options

Thunderbird's print engine is derived from (Mozilla's) Firefox's print engine. The print engine was significantly rewritten for version 91 to fix a large number of bugs and user requests.

Unfortunately it left a few rough edges. Your particular rough edge is not likely to be resolved. However, one which is being investigated for possible resolution is printing selected text.

Helpful?

more options

Thunderbird does not run scripts in email and by default refuses remote images, in that situation there is no more risk to opening an email than there is in receiving a text message. The premise for what you are doing is false. If you can offer a legitimate reason why there is a need to right click and print message that are not even selected please offer it.

I and others are more interested in the loss of the print selected option which no longer exists. But if you can offer a legitimate use case I will be happy to suggest it.

Helpful?

more options

Matt, I outlined the use case on my first post, but here you go: I use the print preview from the inbox message listing to determine if a message is spam or not. Then depending on contents I either mark it as junk or open and deal with it as appropriate. Thanks

Helpful?

more options

jgbittar said

Matt, I outlined the use case on my first post, but here you go: I use the print preview from the inbox message listing to determine if a message is spam or not. Then depending on contents I either mark it as junk or open and deal with it as appropriate. Thanks

You outlined what you have been using it for, but as it provides no additional safety or usability to simply opening the email and reading it. I do not think I could convince anyone that it should be restored because you just want it so you can do it your way based on a flawed assumption it increases your security. I though I had explained all that and why that was not a legitimate use of print preview.

If you want to increase security, make sure remote images are only allowed rarely and on email you desire to see them in.

Helpful?

more options

Maybe you can enlighten me how to determine if one of the emails in my inbox is a spam or not since my flawed method does not justify a second look, so please let me know how to sir.

Helpful?

more options

jgbittar said

Maybe you can enlighten me how to determine if one of the emails in my inbox is a spam or not since my flawed method does not justify a second look, so please let me know how to sir.

Open it and read it. It really is that simple.

Helpful?

more options

Well that is exactly what i do not want to do since is a risk and that is why I am asking.

Helpful?

more options

As I have repeatedly said, it is not an additional risk, therefore your premise is flawed and therefore so is your use case because it is predicated on a flawed assumption. Opening and reading is no greater risk than printing or print previewing.

It might be a risk if like Microsoft mail clients Thunderbird executed scripts upon opening, but it does not. Microsoft have done an excellent job of convincing the world that they have to be careful opening mails because their model is not secure and can cause infections just by opening the mail.

Helpful?

more options

Well now is a better explanation, thank you very much that is much clear than just is not risky. thanks again

Helpful?

more options

Keep to a couple of basic good rules and there is no risk in opening emails whether that be in the lower 'Message Pane' or a new Tab or new window.

Do not choose the option to 'allow remote content in messages' by default. Do not choose the option to 'display attachments inline' by default. Check links before clicking on them - hover over them to see the true link information displayed in Status Bar. Do not trust an email address by default as someone else could be abusing it. If the content does not look like or feel it was the type of content that person would normally use then be wary. Do not feel you have to open an attachment just to satisfy curiosity. Only open attachments sent from known legitimate source.

After deleting a suspicious email, compact the folder to fully remove all traces.

Helpful?

more options

Matt said

As I have repeatedly said, it is not an additional risk, therefore your premise is flawed and therefore so is your use case because it is predicated on a flawed assumption. Opening and reading is no greater risk than printing or print previewing. It might be a risk if like Microsoft mail clients Thunderbird executed scripts upon opening, but it does not. Microsoft have done an excellent job of convincing the world that they have to be careful opening mails because their model is not secure and can cause infections just by opening the mail.

Here's the thing though... Thunderbird may prevent scripts from being read, but as jgbittar was trying to say, being able to examine the email in preview allowed you to see not only the body of the email but allowed you to see the sender's email and reply to information along with the details for any "click here" links or buttons

Opening AND reading the email fully conceals this information onscreen since it engages the HTML conversion and hides the destinations of those click targets with graphical images (buttons, etc)

Many, many toxic emails have been avoided by using the "old" preview system that will NOT be prevented by the "print preview" feature in 91 since it only shows the first (blank) page of the email and doesn't expose mismatches between the supposed sender and the actual origin

For example, if I get an email from Canada Revenue Agency, I used to be able to right-click on the email line to see if the body of the email is actually addressed to me and if the sender and reply-to information shows a domain originating in Russia, then without going any further I can mark this email as junk and if need be, add a filter to remove similar emails in future

At no time was there any risk to me accidentally clicking on a redirected link because I am tired or rushing through hundreds of emails... which while TB will not AUTOMATICALLY runs scripts, it will not stop me from running them unintentionally because I unwisely click on a button that says "Click Here"

Now, because I have to READ the email, I cannot see the hidden info imbedded in the email and have no clue if the email is legit or not .... savvy users will mostly catch bad emails anyway as they have highly developed spidey senses for this, but it was very helpful for less aware users

The new print preview shows nothing, nada, just a blank page and only the first page no matter how many pages the email actually expands into, so it is completely useless as a security feature

Helpful?

more options

Jesus finally someone with some sense. thank you!!!!!!

Helpful?

more options

Selecting Print for an unopened message produces a blank print preview, since a 'preview' requires the message to be opened, as stated above. If you want to inspect a message to determine its validity, open the Message Source (Ctrl+U) and see all the headers and html code.

Helpful?

more options

sfhowes said

Selecting Print for an unopened message produces a blank print preview, since a 'preview' requires the message to be opened, as stated above. If you want to inspect a message to determine its validity, open the Message Source (Ctrl+U) and see all the headers and html code.

Thanks for that sfhowes, thats a useful tip about Ctrl+U showing the Message Source

I still stick to my assertion though that the old preview method was more efficient and logical than what we have now...

Opening the email so that the "preview" will show makes very little sense, as once I have opened the email, I am seeing the actual document anyway...

Here's a comparison of the old version and the new, the reader should make their own conclusions as to which is/was more useful

Helpful?

  1. 1
  2. 2
Ask a question

You must log in to your account to reply to posts. Please start a new question, if you do not have an account yet.