Re: [ SOLVED ] Re: How to have a BLACK body text in the Signature Part ?

[WaltS48]

On 4/27/19 6:19 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 02:12:

On 4/26/19 7:20 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 00:03:

On 4/26/19 5:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:

Ray_Net wrote:

You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the 
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the 
color is BLACK.


I think that i found the solution - using about:config I do a 
search for 99 and I found the "msgcompose.text_color" 
variable with "user set" string at "#99"


Uh, how is "#99" gray? Looks blue to me.


YES, You are true. I remember now that I change the text I wrote to 
blue.

So this is not my problem.
Therefore the problem is still open.
How to avoid the lighter font the signature ? I prefer a solid black.
With text in blue and signature in black THIS indicate also to the 
recipient that it is a signature and not part of the message.


How do you know what the recipient's Display settings are?

Just because it looks pretty to you in the Composition window, 
doesn't mean the recipient will see it that way.


My signature text is black by default when composing a message like 
this one. Lighter when I view it.



I just discovered the solution for my request:
I have inserted in my HTML signature after the  first ""  part a 
style tag as you can see in the beginning of my HTML signature file:




 

   
   
 

<< rest of the html page >>

And the signature is not Lighter anymore.

I have found this info on this web page:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color


Great! But I don't see a signature in your post so can't tell if I 
would see it in black or lighter.


What do I do if it is black and annoys me because I want to see it 
lighter?



You cannot see nothing here because I did not insert a signature.
Effectively, you cannot see lighter. Without my modification ... ONLY 
Thunderbird,SeaMonkey and other mozilla mail readers see the signature 
lighter. Other mail readers see the signature in non-lighter.
Therefore with my modification ALL mail readers see the signature 
IDENTICALLY.
Are you interested that I send a mail, in your mailbox with my signature 
lighter and another with non-ligther ? Or did you prefer that i do it in 
the "mozilla.test" newsgroup ?


mozilla.test would be best.

--
OS: Linux Mint 19.1 - Cinnamon Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [ SOLVED ] Re: How to have a BLACK body text in the Signature Part ?

[Ray_Net]

WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 02:12:

On 4/26/19 7:20 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

WaltS48 wrote on 27-04-19 00:03:

On 4/26/19 5:51 PM, Ray_Net wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 26-04-19 19:30:

Ray_Net wrote:

You are probably true ...but it's a pity that SM modify the 
text-color (changing to GREY) of the html-signature where the 
color is BLACK.


I think that i found the solution - using about:config I do a 
search for 99 and I found the "msgcompose.text_color" 
variable with "user set" string at "#99"


Uh, how is "#99" gray? Looks blue to me.


YES, You are true. I remember now that I change the text I wrote to 
blue.

So this is not my problem.
Therefore the problem is still open.
How to avoid the lighter font the signature ? I prefer a solid black.
With text in blue and signature in black THIS indicate also to the 
recipient that it is a signature and not part of the message.


How do you know what the recipient's Display settings are?

Just because it looks pretty to you in the Composition window, 
doesn't mean the recipient will see it that way.


My signature text is black by default when composing a message like 
this one. Lighter when I view it.



I just discovered the solution for my request:
I have inserted in my HTML signature after the  first ""  part a 
style tag as you can see in the beginning of my HTML signature file:




 

   
   
 

<< rest of the html page >>

And the signature is not Lighter anymore.

I have found this info on this web page:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color


Great! But I don't see a signature in your post so can't tell if I 
would see it in black or lighter.


What do I do if it is black and annoys me because I want to see it 
lighter?



You cannot see nothing here because I did not insert a signature.
Effectively, you cannot see lighter. Without my modification ... ONLY 
Thunderbird,SeaMonkey and other mozilla mail readers see the signature 
lighter. Other mail readers see the signature in non-lighter.
Therefore with my modification ALL mail readers see the signature 
IDENTICALLY.
Are you interested that I send a mail, in your mailbox with my signature 
lighter and another with non-ligther ? Or did you prefer that i do it in 
the "mozilla.test" newsgroup ?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Unsupported Browser Notice

[EE]

NFN Smith wrote:

Brian Mailman wrote:

Windows 10
Seamonkey 2.48

Hi, I'm now receiving a notice of "Unsupported Browser" and that my 
Seamonkey is "outdated" when I try to go to davita.com .


The notice recommends Firefox, among others. I forget where the 
setting is, but I do have this copy of Seamonkey set to identify 
itself as Firefox!



This one is a growing issue, and has been since the release of Firefox, 
circa 57.0. A growing number of site operators are rejecting older 
versions as "dated" (and with known security issues), and I know that 
there were sites rejecting Firefox 52.x ESR implementations (even if 
still supported) before 60.x ESR was released.


I haven't seen it a lot, although I know of one financial institution 
that I deal with that complains about outdated browser, although it 
doesn't deny access.


There's a significant number of Web developers and admins that really 
don't know browsers well, what's supported or not.  A further problem is 
that most web sites get significant amounts of bot-generated traffic 
that use forged User Agent strings.  I've done some work on that with my 
own web site, and even though I go conservatively, I still reject a lot 
of traffic that shows old versions of browsers, or User Agent strings 
that have syntax errors that are obviously forged.


One of the dynamics is that with Google Chrome, they're aggressive 
enough about forcing updates on users that for a site operator, it's 
generally safe to assume that anything that's more than about 2 versions 
older than the most current version, it's safe to assume that it's 
forged, and is safe to reject.  This effect is amplified by both 
developers and admins that mostly live in Chrome (and don't know much 
about Mozilla's architecture, including Seamonkey as a derivative).


Although historically, Seamonkey users have sometimes had to struggle 
with sites that demand Firefox (especially before Seamonkey started 
advertising Firefox compatibility), it is becoming more common that 
sites reject Seamonkey, not necessarily because of Seamonkey, but that 
it's advertising compatibility with Firefox 52.


I do some with spoofing using PrefBar, and I have some number of spoofs 
of other browsers that I may make use of occasionally.  So far, I 
haven't really had to try to spoof Seamonkey 53 or 57 (and Firefox 60 
capacity), but I anticipate doing so before too long.


I did check davita.com, and none of the spoofing I use (whether a stock 
Firefox 60, or for that matter, stock Chrome or Opera strings) are 
getting me past that complaint.  At that stage, it's a pretty good guess 
that the site developer/admin is doing browser sniffing badly. However, 
it's also a guess that they see few enough Seamonkey users (other than 
you) that they're not going to bother to make any changes.


You may need to simply bite the bullet and use another browser for that 
site.


Smith


Is there some big deal about forged user-agents?  Why should the owner 
of a website care whether a user-agent is faked or not?  Besides, if the 
fake has all the navigator elements filled in properly, the fake is hard 
to detect.
Why can people not just validate their code with validator.w3.org?  Then 
they would not have to worry about their pages not working with some 
browsers.
With Mozilla-derived browsers, a user-agent override for a particular 
site seems to work fine.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey