The problem with this "new" captcha solving service is that it is not cheap.
They charge $3.50 per month for unlimited use versus Rumola's cost of only
99 cents for 50 captcha credits which are good for a whole year. So Captcha
Be Gone costs $42 a year while Rumola only costs 99 cents a year. Plus,
Captcha Be Gone only works with Firefox and Chrome, not with IE, while
Rumola works with all three browsers. For now, the winner is still Rumola,
hands down.
Gerald
-----Original Message-----
From: Cristóbal
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 6:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not working
with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
What's been making the rounds the past few days is a new captcha service
called Captcha Be Gone.
http://captchabegone.com/
It's being developed by the same guy who puts out Chicken Nugget and QReader
and so on.
Looks like it'll initially support Firefox and Chrome with a monthly cost of
$3.50.
I don't run into too many captchas, but if it ends up working as advertized,
then at least it would be another option. Folks will have to decide if the
cost is worth it for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Levy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not working
with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
Eric Damery, FS Vice-President of Software Development has already asserted
on the JAWS Users mailing list that adding an image captcha-solving feature
to JAWS presents insurmountable technical challenges at this time.
Gerald
-----Original Message-----
From: cecropia64
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 4:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not working
with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
I've written Freedom Scientific about this issue and asked them if they
would consider adding something to Jaws that would solve captchas. As
usual all they said was that the information was forwarded to their
technical team.
Will this have any affect? You never know. But I'm also quite sure
that I am not the only one who wrote to them and asked the same thing.
It would be nice if they would. It would solve a lot of headaches!
On 1/17/2016 3:33 PM, Mario wrote:
Gerald, I think it's inevitable that web visum is going to be lost, since
it is recommended not to continue to use an outdated version of firefox.
it is possible that Mozilla's ADO (forgot what ADO stands for) team who
can sign extensions that are abandond but essentially beneficial for a
particular reason, that being, that since the developers of web visum have
abandoned the extension, and wv does serve a purpose of enabling blind
users to solve CAPTCHAs, and there is no other plugin that can do what wv
did, they should sign it so we can still solve CAPTCHAs that some websites
still employ.
On 1/17/2016 1:31 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
It is Mozilla that is concerned about unsigned add-ons. Apparently,
unsigned add-ons have been used to introduce malware into Firefox, and
so Mozilla now requires that all developers of third-party add-ons sign
them to comply with the former's security standards and verify that they
are free of malware. . The developers of Webvisum abandoned it years
ago, and so there is no way to contact them and implore them to sign it
to bring it up to snuff. And starting with Firefox 44 or 45, Webvisum
and all other unsined add-ons will no longer work because the config
entry to enable them will be permanently removed. So once you have
Firefox 43 working with Webvisum, it would be a good idea to uncheck the
box on the advanced tab of the tools menu that allows Firefox to update
itself automatically. Otherwise,you will be automatically updated to
Firefox 44 and 45 and lose Webvisum forever.
Gerald
-----Original Message----- From: Bill White
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not
working with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
Hi, Mario. I have never understood this issue concerning unsigned AdOns.
If
a person makes the change to allow all unsigned AdOns to run, and they
are
afraid of running another unsigned AdOn, all they need to do is uninstall
the AdOn or plugin which they don't want to run. That is what the AdOns
manager is for.
Bill White [email protected]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mario" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not
working
with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
in addition, there is a change that can be made in firefox's
configuration settings that can allow unsigned extensions to run, but
that allows, any, unsigned extension/plugin to run, thus defeating
mozillas attempt to improve firefox's security.
it's been suggested to use an earlier portable version of firefox (42)
and adding web visum, and use that version when you need to solve
captchas.
On 1/17/2016 11:09 AM, Mario wrote:
David, since I've upgraded firefox to 43.0.4, web visum is working okay
for me. but some other blind users are experiencing that they can't get
wv to install for them. the problem is more of a security issue in that
wv is not digitally signed. however in my case, before upgrading firefox
to the latest version, web visum was set to automatically start and log
me in when ff was started. maybe that's why my web visum is still
working okay.
On 1/16/2016 8:28 PM, David Ingram wrote:
Hi list members, I’d like to know whether the problem of webvisum not
working with the latest version of firefox has been fixed yet? I’d
like
to let firefox know of this problem but I’m not sure how I would do
that
or if they would be able to respond to this request in a timely manner.
Thank you for any information that you might have concerning this
question.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 12882 (20160117) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 12882 (20160117) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
[email protected]
Archives located at: http://www.groups.io/g/jfw/threads
Alternative archives located at:
http://n2.nabble.com/JAWS-for-Windows-f2145279.html
If you have any concerns about the list, posts received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at [email protected].
-=-=-
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View This Message (#37121): https://groups.io/g/jfw/message/37121
Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/489472?uid=21656
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/g/jfw/editsub?uid=21656
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/jfw/leave/46502/1292106160/xyzzy
Group Home: https://groups.io/g/jfw
Contact Group Owner: [email protected]
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
