getting really old articles but only on startup of Firefox
17 views
Skip to first unread message
scottm...@earthlink.net
Nov 28, 2016, 7:32:06 PM11/28/16
to Bamboo feed reader
Mac OS (latest), Bamboo (latest), FIrefox (latest)
Recently, after an OS update, I lost all my feeds to that security thang mentioned in other threads. I had an OPML file manually backed up for most of my feeds, but wasn't current. SO, manually adding them again. One of sites from which I pull a feed has been active for years. On waking up the iMac and start-up of Firefox (first thing in the morning -- I shut down my apps before I go to bed), I get articles that are years old, and it keeps creeping back in time. I mark them all as read when I realize I'm looking at an article from 2013 (for example), but that seems to only mark as read the ones that are in my queue. Anything earlier, and it shows up the next time I wake up the iMac and restart Firefox. This behavior does not continue while Firefox is active, so I don't see the old stuff during the day when the feeds refresh, even if the iMac has gone to sleep. Is this the way it's supposed to work?
Recently, after an OS update, I lost all my feeds to that security thang mentioned in other threads. I had an OPML file manually backed up for most of my feeds, but wasn't current. SO, manually adding them again. One of sites from which I pull a feed has been active for years. On waking up the iMac and start-up of Firefox (first thing in the morning -- I shut down my apps before I go to bed), I get articles that are years old, and it keeps creeping back in time. I mark them all as read when I realize I'm looking at an article from 2013 (for example), but that seems to only mark as read the ones that are in my queue. Anything earlier, and it shows up the next time I wake up the iMac and restart Firefox. This behavior does not continue while Firefox is active, so I don't see the old stuff during the day when the feeds refresh, even if the iMac has gone to sleep. Is this the way it's supposed to work?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages