Is the problem that Thunderbird does not download images automatically from previously unapproved senders and you would prefer to always download all images?

I don't know whether anyone is working on adding that as an option. For current workarounds, please see this thread: How to see inserted graphics in downloaded email ?

By the way, for users who are not looking for a global exception, you may not need to go to the address book to allow the content if there is a link above the message. (Screen shot example attached.)

We ALREADY KNOW all about the way to see it, as I said, we PREVIOUSLY had the option, and PREVIOUSLY had live links, (I've been using this since it was Netscape Mail!)

The problem IS we want THE OPTION of NOT having to do workarounds and NOT being forced to add every single email we get to "approved Sender" (thus bloating out address book.)

"Anyone working on it as an option?" Who was the guy who decided to TAKE IT OUT? I've seen plenty of users complain about this, and it always is ignored, then deleted.

It look as though the developers are in the midst of changing how the remote content permissions work, from being "sender-based" (i.e., load any images in a message from Joe) to being "source-based" (i.e., load any images hosted on facebook.com). It's unlikely there will be any changes to the current feature until that major change is implemented or rejected.

Here is the proposed new options interface (screen shot posted 3/20/2014):

As you can imagine, significant changes are reviewed by a lot of people and may undergo numerous revisions, so the above may morph considerably before it becomes final. I suspect it will be at least a couple months before you see it released, but there is reason for hope if you don't want to use the "hack" mentioned in the other thread.

Note: bugs 457296 and 953426.

Per the 'Hack:'

"The recommended way to add or modify a setting which doesn't have its own input box, checkbox or radio button in said dialogs is to use Tools → Options → Advanced → General → Config Editor"

There IS NO '"Options" under 'Tools'

Hi cyclonecomputer, since you are on Mac...

Look for that Options dialog under the application menu under the name Preferences:

Thunderbird > Preferences...

Same for Firefox on Mac: Tools > Options becomes Firefox > Preferences.

Got it, That did the trick.

Still, tell the developers that a blanket decision to block it “to protect us” was the mark of supreme arrogance, and remind that A. some of us know what we’re doing when we decide not to accept their protection, and B. WINDOWS isn’t the only operating system out there. An option in the Preferences would be the logical thing to provide if they didn’t see their own user base with such contempt. There are dozens of users I have recommended Thunderbird to, and most want this feature, and are shocked the developers don’t think they’re smart enough to be allowed to make the choice.

Now, is there a way to make URL links 'live?'

Hi cyclonecomputer, I'm not a courier for your opinions and suppositions. I'm a volunteer with limited time, like most people here.

I understand, but as far as I can tell, you volunteers are the ONLY way to convey ANYTHING to the developers. I have found no other way anywhere to contact anyone at Mozilla about anything.

I appreciate all your time and effort and everything you did help me out. It did fix my most annoying greivance. This will help a number of my users out in the field (From my freelance Tech days) who still come to me for advice.

IS there any way to contact Mozilla directly, or do they just remain a formless mass in cyberspace?!?!?!

File a bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ but generalized I want it like I used to be will not be accepted. Bugs are for specifics. Also note that module owners are the final arbiters. If they don't like it it does not happen.

Personally I am extremely disappointed to see any suggestion of allowing remote images by default. Remote images have become the greatest single risk to my privacy. Way above tracking cookies that Nortons have been banging on about for 30 years. Using the address book as a white list in less than optimal and will stop with the new address book. But including a preference that people can just click to allow their privacy to be totally invaded without providing them with the information about what clicking that little box means is, well more arrogant that not having remote images. It certainly smacks of bowing to pressure from marketing companies, not users.

Mozilla has many contact points. If anything, there are too many. Try:

• https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-thunderbird (developer talk)
• https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird (often wiki pages need updating, but you can still find key players and where they hang out)

Hi Matt, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=953426 and current proposed screen shot in the above post https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/991448#answer-547643 (shows an educational link below the checkbox).

If Magnus says it is ok, then I bow to that. I will just make sure it is off.

Well, the deciding voice will be Blake as he has to check off on the ui-review. However, it appears that the general intent here is to also allow white-listing by sites rather than just by senders as currently implemented. Thus, in general that's a good extension of functionality. Exposing the global preference to switch the feature off entirely is definitely a privacy risk, I agree. The way the dialog is designed may be inviting for the user to just make it shut up in this way, without realizing the consequences (it'll have to be seen how much the educational site will be utilized before unchecking the box).

I never really thought of it as a 'bug' so I did not pursue that avenue.

I can understand you objecting to allowing remote images by default. But remote images don't load it you don't look at them (I have 500 spam filters), Macs don't have nearly the security holes Windows has, and as I have stated before: some of us know what we're doing. AND....we know we'll have no one to blame but ourselves if something DOES get through and messes up our computers, (the Personal Responsibility concept, so lost in the U.S.) The other half is the sheer volume of email I get from eBay members, each and every one a slightly different address, and each and every one I had to 'enable' to see it! Maybe white listing sites will fix that, but I still would like the choice to make on my own. Many of my former customers still call me when they run into questions like 'Should they shut off global protection' so I do think it's a good idea you put in all sorts of warning if they go to disable it. Oh, and just so you know, my former service company "Cyclone Computer" (Approx 500 customers, most we single Mac freelancers) never sent out commercial emails and taught my users HOW to avoid getting hacked or phished or get their identity stolen. I now work in an  IT department of a large Fortune 50 firm, so their is no 'commercial pressure' on my part in asking for this option.  Many of my former customers do understand the reason for the default blocking and are happy it's there. 

Once again. Thanks for all the help, At least the hack solves the problem for me. I see if some of my former users what to take the risk and try it themselves. Keep up the good work. Despite my whining, it's still the best email program out there.

Hi cyclonecomputer, some people now say the relative safety of a patched up MacOS X vs. patched up Win 7 system has reversed from earlier times, but that's a debate for a different forum.

I believe the original reason for not auto-loading images was privacy, because web bugs (images requested with coded parameters) made it easy to detect that you viewed the message. I'm not sure that any approach is well tuned to target that concern.

Only Education Jscher2000, I will educate those i see, but the masses will enable remote images and surrender their privacy for the pretty jumping pussy cat. All you have to do it look at a mailing service like mail chimp and the information on who, when, where, click thoughts, repeat viewing, forwards etc that they can offer to know web bugs a bad for privacy. those 1X1 pixel invisible images are the threat.

My personal bug bear is the Twitter widget everyone has on their web pages. It passes information on all sorts of things back to twitter when it loads the Twitter side javascript, and I can not seem to block it without blocking twitter entirely. They probably have an almost complete picture of where all of use have been on the web in the last few years, and i don't even have a twitter account.

I think you can add Google and Facebook to that list, along with a few dozen no-name services specializing in user tracking and behavioral profiling. With the information from e-mail messages containing those invisible tracking images, they could certainly correlate the e-mail just opened with subsequent browsing activity from your machine to get a fuller picture what the user is doing and how the ads or content are received by him or her.

Yes, education is the key, one way or the other...

I may be naïve, but why doesn’t anyone make an email program that can download the images, but not send any personal data back? Preventing automatic downloads may help protect users’ privacy, but all that goes out the window the second they click “Show Remote Content!” The ideal email app would shunt the image in a contained box and just send out just the generic parameters to display the content. Whether that means worldwide protocols have to be changed or not, something along those lines should be pursued.

cyclonecomputer, the bugzilla.mozilla.org is a multi purpose tracker for tracking a long list of things Mozilla related besides actual bugs in say Thunderbird or Firefox for example.