[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamin W. Collins) wrote in
997896584.987.10.camel@jamin-mini">news:997896584.987.10.camel@jamin-mini, on 15 Aug 2001:
> I've been through similiar situations several times. If you want
> to get a clear answer from them, you will need to quote the
> entirety of their response and indicate in very plain english how
> there response doesn't answer your question. Then you need to hope
> that your e-mail actually reaches someone that gives a damn.
I did just that. I quoted the entire email conversation and said that I
wanted to know exactly what they were refering to. That was almost a
week ago and they haven't responded, even though they claim to strive
for an answer in 1 business day
>
>> Is there anything in Mozilla that is insecure as they
>> have suggested, some bug in SSL or something, anything, or are
>> they just BSing me and they have got absolutely nothing to back it
>> with?
>
> Nothing that I'm aware of, at least not that hasn't been fixed. A
> while ago, Mozilla was lacking complete SSL support. However, that
> seems to have been corrected. So, it's most likely a lack of
> proper detection on their behalf combined with laziness in testing
> the newer releases of Mozilla.
Well, Netscape 6.0 had full SSL support, correct? That's what their
decision to block anything with a Mozilla 5.0 useragent was based on
--
ICQ: 123728792
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m
