Ben Bucksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Ball wrote:
>
>> The reason given for the total lack of support for Linux and Mozilla /
>> Netscape 6 is that they require a signed PKI security system that is
>> apparently only available for Windows.
>
> From what I understand, they present pseudo-arguments.
Absolute nonsense, the site works fine with Lynx.
They implement agressive useragent string parsing.
You must use a string of letters that makes them think you are useing
a browser that is either number one or two in usage standing.
Which mozilla sort of does, even an obscure 5.0 does not bother it
but you must also include in parentheses some
letters that make them think you use an OS that needs to reboot alot.
It makes a good case for the ability to change the string on the fly,
maybe even from a radial list. In hind site it seems to me User-Agent
should never have been implemented, since it's predominate use is
for the purpose of discrimination. It's none of their business what
software I'm running. I don't think there would have been a browser war
if there were no stats to track.
After you get past the door man it sends you this:
<NOSCRIPT>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=REFRESH CONTENT="0; URL=/html/bad_browser.asp">
I guess that should be BAD!_browser.asp. REFRESH should also be configurable.
--
mark
