On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:46:22 -0700, "David E. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 7/30/11 4:23 PM, JohnW-Mpls wrote [in part]: >> >> Phooey, SM's 2.2 is no better at being fully accepted at some sites - 2.2's >> new option to "advertise FireFox compatibility" does not help, at least for >> me. One of my major sites is adding stuff SM just does not see and I >> cannot afford to miss those things. > >There are some Web sites that not only sniff badly but also reject >"Firefox" in the user agent (UA) string if "SeaMonkey" is also present. > The bank I use has such a site. > >I disabled (unchecked the checkbox) for "Advertise Firefox >compatibility". For my bank's Web site, I use PrefBar to spoof Firefox >without any mention of "SeaMonkey". The Web sites for three other >financial institutions where I have accounts accept "SeaMonkey" and >don't require any spoofing at all. What/where is PrefBar? In any case, I'm getting leery that any spoofing will be good enough. One web host will now not accept my uploads using SM - not horrible but further indication that sophisticated groups may refuse spoofs - or at least all I've had so far. Upon reflection, I'm more concerned about things on a web site that I don't see using SM but do see using IE, FF, etc. I don't want that limitation. But all is not lost - the graphics pages on one unsophisticated web site with a weekly update have not been visible to SM since 2.0 - but today the pages are again visible using SM (2.2). Being cautious, I note that the graphics look different - did the vendor change web designers? -- JohnW-Mpls _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
