David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/25/2018 8:18 PM, Daniel wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/25/2018 8:32 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
On 1/25/18 10:56 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/25/2018 3:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 1/24/2018 7:51 PM, Daniel wrote:
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
2.49.1 is based on ESR 52.4
2.49.2 should (hopefully) arrive in the next 2-3 weeks and will be based
on 52.6
Firefox does not show minor version numbers in its UA string.
52.5.3 ESR:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0
2.49.2 x 64 local build:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.2
As you can see almost identical but as usual google and others will do
incorrect user agent sniffing.
FRG
That's interesting!! Being a long term SM user, it has always intrigued
me why the Gecko number has not been updated in yonks (20100101)... but
now I see that probably stems from FF, which also doesn't seem to update
its Gecko release date!!
Presumably the Gecko engine *HAS* actually been updated!! ;-P
Not updating the version date for Gecko in the user agent string is part
of Mozilla's plan to obscure user characteristics. Web servers sniffing
user data supposedly find it harder to track individual users. See bug
#1329996 at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1329996>.
I prefer relying on the Secret Agent extension from
<https://www.dephormation.org.uk/index.php?page=81>.
Then one would have to wonder what use it is to have the Gecko version
with-in the User-Agent string at all!! ;-(
Some Web servers insist on sniffing the user agent string and expect
some kind of date for Gecko. Mozilla-based browsers fail to work on
such Web sites unless there is a date field.
An example please.
I do not have an example. I recall reading in a bug report (now
apparently closed) that omitting the Gecko date was causing problems
with Web servers that sniff the UA.
I seem to recall that some/many sites fail to function for SeaMonkey
unless the SeaMonkey UA had FF in it ... in some cases *Only FF* in the
SM UA
So why the mention, now, of some sniffing for Gecko?? Is that Gecko
*only* or Gecko *as well* now??
The servers were not sniffing specifically for "Gecko". When they
sniffed, however, they were programmed to expect certain fields in the
UA string. One of those fields was the Gecko date, but they did not
parse the date. Instead, any date in that position of the UA string was
acceptable.
Why bother sniffing for something and then not use it?? Some programmers
must like to waste time!!
Thanks, David.
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171016030418
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
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
