How about threatening them by saying that Citibank, FirstUSA, American
Express, Discover, MBNA all have no problems with Mozilla, so whats
their excuse? and if they don't get it to work, you'll move your account
over....
just a thought....
- Pratik.
DeMoN LaG wrote:
> [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
>
>
