Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[meagain]

 Original Message 

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



More and more web companies are reasonably paranoid about SECURITY and 
obsessive about support COSTS. Consequently they must pick and choose 
which browsers they will support. I suggest that outweighs whether one 
browser is similar to another.


We SM fans just have to keep at the web sites to accept OUR fave.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[meagain]

 Original Message 

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



Edit / Preferences / Advanced / HTTP Networking

Change User Agent string setting to 'Identify as Firefox'. See if that 
helps.





I tried that; but the setting that did work was #3: Id as SeaMonkey with 
Firefox compatibility - or words to that effect.

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Daniel]

Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote on 27/08/2020 8:35 PM:

NFN Smith wrote:

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



The differences are less than they want you to believe.

I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I 
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that 
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not 
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google 
Chrome that this site will accept.


It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.

Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the 
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on 
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a 
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently 
it comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd 
(to them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to 
being Your Problem.


On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are 
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things 
difficult for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen 
that myself, although at Google's main search page, there's a display 
quirk that goes away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string.  
Thus, for google.com, I have an about:config entry that shows Google 
that I'm a Firefox user.


My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser 
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not 
work for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick 
on-the-fly spoofing, when I need to.


But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that 
may start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have to 
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser 
for getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just 
annoying sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


Smith


The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript 
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. Not 
a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail when 
confronted with a browser it does not recognise.
I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where someone 
posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the problem - the 
javascript should test for browser *capabilities* instead of 
browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the Google-page. 
Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, some of their 
pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.

Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.

If a site is going to test for Browser capabilities, if they detect a 
browser that they haven't set up for, should they have a Default page to 
feed out??


It would save a lot of hassle, I'm guessing . but, then, if they 
were going to have a default page, why don't they just feed the default 
page to everyone, I guess??

--
Daniel

Win7 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) 
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.5 Build identifier: 20190609032134


Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) 
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[WaltS48]

On 8/27/20 4:06 PM, NFN Smith wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/27/20 6:35 AM, Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:





But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that 
may start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have 
to abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate 
browser for getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or 
just annoying sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


Smith


The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript 
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. 
Not a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail 
when confronted with a browser it does not recognise.


I this case it seems to be where they're explicitly rejecting anything 
that's not on their internal whitelist.


I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where 
someone posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the 
problem - the javascript should test for browser *capabilities* 
instead of browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the 
Google-page. Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that 
advice, some of their pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.

Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.


Depending on the site, it could be *Feature* detection or browser 
sniffing.


 



 From the testing I did, it looks like their scripting is explicitly 
querying browser capabilities, rather than simply looking at what's 
presented in the User Agent string.


Technically, that's the correct thing to be doing, even if Google isn't 
following their own advice, at least not strictly.


In the case of a movie site like Rotten Tomatoes, I'm assuming that 
there's a lot of direct connection to content and delivery mechanisms 
related to YouTube, so it makes sense that they're going to demand use 
of a browser that supports YouTube's current capacities, and that they 
enforce that demand based on data that they extract through querying the 
contents of the browser.


For what it's worth, I did check that site with other browsers, 
including Firefox 80, legacy Edge, PaleMoon, Safari and Opera.  I had no 
problems with any of those browsers except Edge. I don't yet have the 
new Chrome version of Edge and PaleMoon, but if Safari and Opera are OK, 
then it seems to be that any current Chromium browser is OK, rather than 
Google Chrome, as the site demands.  And for Firefox 80, it does look 
like they've implemented something that uses the current Google 
offerings.  I don't have a copy of Firefox 68.x ESR handy, so I don't 
know if that will handle this situation, but with the 68 branch nearly 
EOL, it probably doesn't much matter.


Smith



I feel bad for Linux users that want to use HBO Max.



--
OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
https://give.thunderbird.net/en-US/

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[NFN Smith]

WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/27/20 6:35 AM, Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:





But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that 
may start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have 
to abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate 
browser for getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or 
just annoying sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


Smith


The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript 
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. 
Not a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail 
when confronted with a browser it does not recognise.


I this case it seems to be where they're explicitly rejecting anything 
that's not on their internal whitelist.


I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where 
someone posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the 
problem - the javascript should test for browser *capabilities* 
instead of browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the 
Google-page. Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, 
some of their pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.

Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.



Depending on the site, it could be *Feature* detection or browser sniffing.

 



From the testing I did, it looks like their scripting is explicitly 
querying browser capabilities, rather than simply looking at what's 
presented in the User Agent string.


Technically, that's the correct thing to be doing, even if Google isn't 
following their own advice, at least not strictly.


In the case of a movie site like Rotten Tomatoes, I'm assuming that 
there's a lot of direct connection to content and delivery mechanisms 
related to YouTube, so it makes sense that they're going to demand use 
of a browser that supports YouTube's current capacities, and that they 
enforce that demand based on data that they extract through querying the 
contents of the browser.


For what it's worth, I did check that site with other browsers, 
including Firefox 80, legacy Edge, PaleMoon, Safari and Opera.  I had no 
problems with any of those browsers except Edge. I don't yet have the 
new Chrome version of Edge and PaleMoon, but if Safari and Opera are OK, 
then it seems to be that any current Chromium browser is OK, rather than 
Google Chrome, as the site demands.  And for Firefox 80, it does look 
like they've implemented something that uses the current Google 
offerings.  I don't have a copy of Firefox 68.x ESR handy, so I don't 
know if that will handle this situation, but with the 68 branch nearly 
EOL, it probably doesn't much matter.


Smith

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[WaltS48]

On 8/27/20 6:35 AM, Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:

NFN Smith wrote:

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



The differences are less than they want you to believe.

I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I 
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that 
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not 
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google 
Chrome that this site will accept.


It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.

Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the 
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on 
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a 
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently 
it comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd 
(to them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to 
being Your Problem.


On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are 
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things 
difficult for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen 
that myself, although at Google's main search page, there's a display 
quirk that goes away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string.  
Thus, for google.com, I have an about:config entry that shows Google 
that I'm a Firefox user.


My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser 
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not 
work for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick 
on-the-fly spoofing, when I need to.


But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that 
may start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have to 
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser 
for getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just 
annoying sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


Smith


The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript 
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. Not 
a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail when 
confronted with a browser it does not recognise.
I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where someone 
posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the problem - the 
javascript should test for browser *capabilities* instead of 
browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the Google-page. 
Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, some of their 
pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.

Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.



Depending on the site, it could be *Feature* detection or browser sniffing.



--
OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
https://give.thunderbird.net/en-US/

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Don Spam's Reckless Son]

NFN Smith wrote:

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



The differences are less than they want you to believe.

I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I 
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that 
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not 
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google 
Chrome that this site will accept.


It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.

Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the 
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on 
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a 
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently it 
comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd (to 
them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to being 
Your Problem.


On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are 
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things difficult 
for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen that myself, 
although at Google's main search page, there's a display quirk that goes 
away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string.  Thus, for google.com, 
I have an about:config entry that shows Google that I'm a Firefox user.


My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser 
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not work 
for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick on-the-fly 
spoofing, when I need to.


But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that may 
start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have to 
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser for 
getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just annoying 
sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


Smith


The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript 
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually. 
Not a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail 
when confronted with a browser it does not recognise.
I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where someone 
posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the problem - the 
javascript should test for browser *capabilities* instead of 
browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the Google-page. 
Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, some of their 
pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.

Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.

--
spammo ergo sum, viruses courtesy of https://www.nsa.gov/malware/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[NFN Smith]

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



The differences are less than they want you to believe.

I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I 
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that 
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not 
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google 
Chrome that this site will accept.


It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.

Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the 
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on 
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a 
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently it 
comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd (to 
them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to being 
Your Problem.


On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are 
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things difficult 
for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen that myself, 
although at Google's main search page, there's a display quirk that goes 
away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string.  Thus, for google.com, 
I have an about:config entry that shows Google that I'm a Firefox user.


My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser 
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not work 
for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick on-the-fly 
spoofing, when I need to.


But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that may 
start having problems with Seamonkey.  For that, you don't have to 
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser for 
getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just annoying 
sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.


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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Ant]

On 8/26/2020 11:58 AM, Lee wrote:

On 8/26/20, AK  wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.


Have you tried
   Edit / Preferences
   Advanced / HTTP Networking
   under "User Agent String" selecting
 Identify as SeaMonkey and advertise Firefox compatibility


The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?


I suspect not almost identical any more :(

Firefox extended support release (ESR) is up to version 68.  I've lost
track, but I think SeaMonkey 2.53 is based on Firefox ESR version 56,
so it's not all that identical any more


I thought it was v57. I know UA shows v60 which is inaccurate (don't 
know why they use that number).

--
Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, illnesses (e.g., 
COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), interruptions, stresses, 
heat waves, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs 
(e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. Note: A fixed width font 
(Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.

   /\___/\ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
  / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
 | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
\ _ / Please kindly use :( Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
 ( )
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Ant]

On 8/26/2020 11:53 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

On 8/26/20 2:29 PM, AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



Where did you get that idea?


Maybe he meant the Gecko engine, but SeaMonkey v2.53.3 uses Gecko v60 
(Or was that v57?).

--
Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, illnesses (e.g., 
COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), interruptions, stresses, 
heat waves, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs 
(e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. Note: A fixed width font 
(Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.

   /\___/\ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
  / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
 | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
\ _ / Please kindly use :( Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
 ( )
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Lee]

On 8/26/20, AK  wrote:
> I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

Have you tried
  Edit / Preferences
  Advanced / HTTP Networking
  under "User Agent String" selecting
Identify as SeaMonkey and advertise Firefox compatibility

> The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.
>
> I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

I suspect not almost identical any more :(

Firefox extended support release (ESR) is up to version 68.  I've lost
track, but I think SeaMonkey 2.53 is based on Firefox ESR version 56,
so it's not all that identical any more

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

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[WaltS48]

On 8/26/20 2:29 PM, AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



Where did you get that idea?

--
OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/
https://give.thunderbird.net/en-US/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: More and more sites do not accept Seamonkey

[Edward]

AK wrote:

I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.

The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.

I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?

Andy



Edit / Preferences / Advanced / HTTP Networking

Change User Agent string setting to 'Identify as Firefox'. See if that 
helps.



--
Netscape -> Mozilla Suite -> SeaMonkey. User. Since 1997.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey