SeaMonkey Issues with some Websites

I have upgraded several computers to SeaMonkey 2.49.5 x64. I've noticed 
that I am having issues with some websites using SeaMonkey. that I don't 
have with other browsers.

I use several different computers in different locations with Windows 7 
Pro. I have not changed the User Agent, although User Agent Switcher is 
install on some computers but not all.

On the American Express site when I try to download an archived 
statement it does not appear to accept the selection.

On Southwest.com I get a popup "Feedback" window all of the time for no 
apparent reason.

Has any one else seen this kind of behavior?

-- 
Rob Steinmetz
0
Rob
1/7/2020 3:50:15 PM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 13325 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

8 Replies
15 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 6

SeaMonkey v2.49.5 uses a very old Gecko web engine based on Firefox v52. 
  Lots of web sites don't support that old. We'll have to wait for the 
next major versions of SeaMonkey with the newer engine versions and that 
will take a very long time to finish (you can use its prereleases, but 
they're buggy). I also had to use other web browsers like Firefox v71 
(now 72 from its today's release). :(


On 1/7/2020 7:50 AM, Rob Steinmetz wrote:
> I have upgraded several computers to SeaMonkey 2.49.5 x64. I've noticed 
> that I am having issues with some websites using SeaMonkey. that I don't 
> have with other browsers.
> 
> I use several different computers in different locations with Windows 7 
> Pro. I have not changed the User Agent, although User Agent Switcher is 
> install on some computers but not all.
> 
> On the American Express site when I try to download an archived 
> statement it does not appear to accept the selection.
> 
> On Southwest.com I get a popup "Feedback" window all of the time for no 
> apparent reason.
> 
> Has any one else seen this kind of behavior?
> 


-- 
"Is this stuff any good for ants?" "No, it kills them." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
1/7/2020 5:33:27 PM
Ant wrote:
> We'll have to wait for the next major 
> versions of SeaMonkey with the newer engine versions and that will take a very 
> long time to finish (you can use its prereleases, but they're buggy). 

Nothing personal but don't spread misinformation. 2.53.x is not buggy. 2.57 
is. 2.53.1 is due out soon. First beta done and in release.

> I also 
> had to use other web browsers like Firefox v71 (now 72 from its today's 
> release). :(
> 

Currently most issues are because of bad user agent sniffing or deliberate 
shutting out of non major browsers. Even SeaMonkey 99999.99 won't help here. 
This may change in the future but isn't the case today.


FRG
0
Frank
1/7/2020 7:10:12 PM
On 1/7/2020 11:10 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> Ant wrote:
>> We'll have to wait for the next major versions of SeaMonkey with the 
>> newer engine versions and that will take a very long time to finish 
>> (you can use its prereleases, but they're buggy). 
> 
> Nothing personal but don't spread misinformation. 2.53.x is not buggy. 
> 2.57 is. 2.53.1 is due out soon. First beta done and in release.

Is v2.53.1 stable enough for production usage so I can stop using 
Firefox and others?
-- 
"You'd think we could just attract ants like normal people." --Wolverine 
(X-Men:TAS)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see 
this signature correctly.
    /\___/\                     http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.ma.cx /
   / /\ /\ \                                 http://antfarm.home.dhs.org
  | |o   o| |   Axe ANT from its address if shown & e-mailing privately.
     \ _ /       Please kindly use Ant nickname & URL/link if crediting.
      ( )
0
Ant
1/7/2020 10:08:36 PM
Ant wrote:
> SeaMonkey v2.49.5 uses a very old Gecko web engine based on Firefox v52. 
>  �Lots of web sites don't support that old. 

At least they claim not to support that old.

I've found that with spoofing, that if I give a site a UA string showing 
Gecko 60 or 68 from Seamonkey 2.49.5, I generally don't have problems. 
If I have problems, it's far more likely to be other tweaking that I've 
done, such blocking stuff with NoScript and/or uBlock Origin, blocking 
tracking, refusing third-party cookies, etc.

I'm sure that there's sites out there that really require something 
newer than Gecko 52, but I think that they're very few, and I can't 
remember seeing them.

Where I've seen sites complaining about Seamonkey 2.49.5/Gecko 52 is 
usually coming from scripting that's doing UA sniffing.  With NoScript 
active, I rarely see any of that, because the scripts never run (and 
can't check).  There are a handful of sites that won't give me what I 
want without enabling the scripting that does sniffing, and for that, 
spoofing generally does what I need.

For sites, the issue is generally not that they *can't* handle Gecko 52, 
so much as it is that they want users running newer browsers, because 
older ones do have known security holes in them.  Unfortunately, the 
number of Seamonkey users is small enough that at sites doing checking, 
the owners don't know (or don't care) that Seamonkey is actively being 
maintained, despite showing Gecko 52.  I've noted before that I see that 
happening most often with sites for financial providers.  For good 
measure, the people providing help at various sites are likely to demand 
specific browsers (and versions), because it streamlines the support 
process (again, financial providers are the most aggressive).  For 
Seamonkey, they don't care that it's a functional equivalent, just that 
the different UI layout is enough that they don't want to be bothered 
with trying to figure out where a particular setting is.

All that said, I do know that if I'm spoofing, it's definitely possible 
that the site really does require something specific to Gecko 60, but 
that's on me, and I'm not going to go to the site's support and complain 
that things aren't working because of how I'm using Seamonkey.  If I'm 
having problems, I can either go to a profile where the only tweak I 
make is for spoofing, or I can launch Firefox from a profile that 
doesn't have a lot of tweaking.

Smith
0
NFN
1/8/2020 12:43:55 AM
NFN Smith wrote on 08/01/2020 01:43:
> Ant wrote:
>> SeaMonkey v2.49.5 uses a very old Gecko web engine based on Firefox v5=
2. =C2=A0=C2=A0Lots of web sites don't support that old.=20
>=20
> At least they claim not to support that old.
>=20
> I've found that with spoofing, that if I give a site a UA string showin=
g Gecko 60 or 68 from Seamonkey 2.49.5, I generally don't have problems. =
If I have problems, it's far more likely to be other tweaking that I've d=
one, such blocking stuff with NoScript and/or uBlock Origin, blocking tra=
cking, refusing third-party cookies, etc.
>=20
> I'm sure that there's sites out there that really require something new=
er than Gecko 52, but I think that they're very few, and I can't remember=
 seeing them.
>=20
> Where I've seen sites complaining about Seamonkey 2.49.5/Gecko 52 is us=
ually coming from scripting that's doing UA sniffing.=C2=A0 With NoScript=
 active, I rarely see any of that, because the scripts never run (and can=
't check).=C2=A0 There are a handful of sites that won't give me what I w=
ant without enabling the scripting that does sniffing, and for that, spoo=
fing generally does what I need.
>=20
> For sites, the issue is generally not that they *can't* handle Gecko 52=
, so much as it is that they want users running newer browsers, because o=
lder ones do have known security holes in them.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, the =
number of Seamonkey users is small enough that at sites doing checking, t=
he owners don't know (or don't care) that Seamonkey is actively being mai=
ntained, despite showing Gecko 52.=C2=A0 I've noted before that I see tha=
t happening most often with sites for financial providers.=C2=A0 For good=
 measure, the=20
> people providing help at various sites are likely to demand specific br=
owsers (and versions), because it streamlines the support process (again,=
 financial providers are the most aggressive).=C2=A0 For Seamonkey, they =
don't care that it's a functional equivalent, just that the different UI =
layout is enough that they don't want to be bothered with trying to figur=
e out where a particular setting is.
>=20
> All that said, I do know that if I'm spoofing, it's definitely possible=
 that the site really does require something specific to Gecko 60, but th=
at's on me, and I'm not going to go to the site's support and complain th=
at things aren't working because of how I'm using Seamonkey.=C2=A0 If I'm=
 having problems, I can either go to a profile where the only tweak I mak=
e is for spoofing, or I can launch Firefox from a profile that doesn't ha=
ve a lot of tweaking.
>=20
> Smith

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed answer, very usefu=
l and much appreciated.

BR,

R. Furb

0
Rubens
1/8/2020 8:14:22 AM
On 07.01.2020 23:08, Ant wrote:
> Is v2.53.1 stable enough for production usage so I can stop using Firefox and 
> others?


Yes!

<https://unofficialseamonkeynews.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/unofficial-seamonkey-2-53-2-beta-1-pre-by-user-wg9s/comment-page-1/#comment-958>

CU

Rainer
0
Rainer
1/8/2020 11:33:55 AM
Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> On 07.01.2020 23:08, Ant wrote:
>> Is v2.53.1 stable enough for production usage so I can stop using Firefox 
>> and others?
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> <https://unofficialseamonkeynews.wordpress.com/2019/12/31/unofficial-seamonkey-2-53-2-beta-1-pre-by-user-wg9s/comment-page-1/#comment-958> 
> 
> 
> CU
> 
> Rainer

In the tradition of "eat your own dogfood" I am using it since 2018. 2.49.5 
only for tests if needed. Just make a complete profile backup and delete a 
master password before updating. See the upcoming release notes in 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1602735

If you use Bills builds: Now and then small regressions or a broken build 
creeps in. Usually fixed fast/next day but please keep the last stable one.

FRG
0
Frank
1/8/2020 12:53:51 PM
On 08.01.2020 13:53, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> Now and then small regressions or a broken build creeps�in

Yes, that can happen.

So I (Windows user) first try the installer of a particular new 2.53 daily. Of 
course before testing I backup my User Profile (simple .zip) and do first steps 
with a test profile, not with my user profile.

If everything works fine for me after 2 ... 3 days of testing with my normal 
User Profile, I install form downloaded installer.exe

Tests of further 2.53 dailies with downloaded .ZIPs.

CU

Rainer
0
Rainer
1/8/2020 1:19:49 PM
Reply: