Hi, NFN Smith! Thanks for writing, on 06 Mar 17 13:49:
I decided to reply below the quote, instead of the
paragraph-by-paragraph I usually do...
I use the Fastmail service for e-mail, and have been a user for many
yeras (currently a sort of 'legacy user', since they've changed owners
and systems several times over the years).
FastMail has been on a new site for several years, but have kept a
'classic version' for legacy users; however, in June they'll stop
supporting it, but using SeaMonkey their system says:
Sorry, your browser does not support the technologies needed to use
our web interface. Please make sure you have the latest version, and
that JavaScript is enabled. Learn more about our browser
requirements:
[ ... ]
Are there any other FastMail users on this Forum, or (maybe even if not)
someone may have some idea besides what I described above?
The site to 'open in SM' is:
https://www.fastmail.com/login/
It may be that Fastmail is complaining about SM 2.40 (or more likely,
2.40's User-Agent spoofing of Firefox 43).
In the last month or so before the release of 2.46, I found an
increasing number of sites that were objecting to Seamonkey. I don't use
the Fastmail web interface frequently, but I know that it was
complaining about Seamonkey, in the way that you've described. I have
PrefBar installed, and when I used the tool for browser spoofing, so
that I was showing the current version of Firefox, I had no problems
with FastMail.
I upgraded to the Adrian Kalla contributed build of 2.47 (which has
since upgraded to 2.48), and I can't remember seeing any site complain
about Seamonkey support since then. And, I've had no problems with
either the 2.47 or 2.48 builds.
Elsewhere in this thread, you mentioned avoiding upgrading out of 2.40
unless there's a compelling reason to do so. For me, the compelling
reason (and the reason I went to Adrian's contributed build) was the
accumulation of security fixes. And now that 2.46 is in full release, I
can't see any compelling reason *not* to upgrade to that one, even if
you're not wanting to run a later version on a contributed build.
For your specific case, I really don't think there's anything specific
to Seamonkey's capacities and Fastmail's web UI that aren't also issues
in Firefox 43.0. I won't bother to check spoofing FF 43 against
Fastmail, but I think it very probable that if I were to do so, they
would give me the same error messages that you're reporting.
For Fastmail (and countless other web site operators), what you're
seeing is simply the effects of a world where Web 2.0 is a de facto
standard, and where it's a normal thing that a web site uses JavaScript
(in varying degrees from token to extensive). Although I use NoScript to
block a lot of scripting (and I think a lot of it is egregious), and
it's also possible that part of Fastmail's objection to seeing FF 43.0
may be based on security issues, if you take Fastmail's error message at
face value, they're telling you that in your current setup, your browser
won't render the site in the way that they've designed it. That could
be merely display quirks, or it could be that there's essential
functionality that won't work, because they've coded it for capacity
that wasn't available in FF 43.0.
At this stage, I think your options are:
- Upgrade to 2.46
- Install PrefBar or User Agent Switcher, and set the User Agent string
to spoof a version of Firefox that Fastmail will accept.
Unless you have specific reasons about 2.46 being unsuitable, I strongly
encourage you to upgrade.
In that part which you substituted by "[ ... ]", I had already said:
No changes to JS (general or in the tab, using PrefBar), SM User
Agents and/or "advertise FF compatibility" helped, but opening the
page in FF worked right away -- so, I think the difference must be
something 'localized'.
I wasn't explicit, but the "changes to SM User Agents" WERE made using
PrefBar (which I've been using since v.3), and it isn't the case of "a
version of Firefox that Fastmail will accept", since I have a UA for FF
43, and it made no difference, while opening an actual FF 41 worked...
Also, as I said in a reply to Daniel:
My problem isn't finding a way to access [the login]: It's discovering
why my SM 40 on 32-bit XP cannot (exactly because it seems that,
besides a very efficient 'version-sniffing' from FM, there doesn't
seem to be any reason for that, and I'd like to understand why that
happens).
So I CAN login on the new page in FF 41, but cannot do so on SM 2.40!
About the upgrade to 2.46, as I said in a reply to Frank-Rainer Grahl:
I don't have much free time right now (and one of the reasons is
that I'm migrating to a dual-boot XP/W7 system, so discovering, and
learning to handle, the differences about programs on these SOs
(much more work than I expected) takes up much time.
I really would like (including for my own sake) to remember why I
decided to keep on SM 40 for now, but I recall that it's something
which is a 'no turning back': Sure, a backup can be restored, but
once you start using the new one for everyday use, going back is
very difficult and time-consuming -- and recall it was something I
might only realize wasn't working for me some time onward... So,
since I can upgrade any time (I kept SM 39 for quite some time
before I felt safe going to 40), I decided to wait.
So, currently I'm on the 'reverse position': Unless I find any
compelling reason to upgrade to 2.46 (and 'enhanced security' wouldn't
be it; as you can see, I'm still using Win XP, and only now migrating to
Win 7, and due to version incompatibilities, NOT security ones), I'll
stay on 2.40 for now, until I have time and slice-of-mind to make sure
the change won't be for the worse, IN MY CASE.
--
Thanks for your attention, and I hope to hear from you soon.
s) Alexander Yudenitsch <ale...@postpro.net>
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
