Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Justin, your answers are always helpful, constructive and
non-confrontational : please accept my replies (below) in the
same vein --
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
... SeaMonkey 2.0.14 is VULNERABLE to web attacks/exploits,
including ones actively being exploited as we speak.
I did not suggest otherwise. But it was just as vulnerable on
the day that it was released, and to suggest otherwise is
grossly irresponsible.
Speaking of hyperbole... ;-)
I'm sorry, that is /not/ hyperbole : it is a statement of fact.
You're hyperbolic, I'm just stating facts.
You're obstinate, I'm determined.
Etc.
...
In the same vein, I am very disturbed to see that Seamonkey now
reports itself (in the User-Agent field) as "Firefox/6.0.2" (amongst
other, more honest, claims); it is, and should be proud to be,
"SeaMonkey/2.3.3", and should not seek to pretend that it is that
which it is not. ...
For the whole of my life, I have believed in telling the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth; I am deeply saddened to find
that a product in which I have previously had complete confidence,
and which I have previously recommended unreservedly to others, is
now prepared to lie.
How else would you treat the idiots who design websites without knowing
the word "Gecko," who write browser sniffers that reject SM because it's
not called "Firefox"? We've been all through this. We're not fooling
anyone with a lick of sense, just the idiots.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
