What if all Mozilla browsers would just use Gecko in the user agent string?

There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them 
would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?

Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites 
as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all 
Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.

Would it cause any adverse effects?
0
Dirk
4/19/2017 9:39:45 PM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 12342 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

24 Replies
54 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 33

Dirk Munk wrote:
> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them
> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>
> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites
> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all
> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>
> Would it cause any adverse effects?

Better question, why won't web designers stop using user agent strings 
in their websites?

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
0
Jonathan
4/19/2017 10:04:34 PM
On 4/19/17 5:39 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them 
> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>
> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites 
> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all 
> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>
> Would it cause any adverse effects?


How about just Mozilla/5.0, since all browsers user agent strings begin 
with that.

The user agent string for Vivaldi.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) 
Chrome/57.0.2987.138 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.8.770.56

-- 
Go Bucs and Pens!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

0
WaltS48
4/19/2017 10:05:31 PM
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Dirk Munk wrote:
>> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them
>> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>>
>> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites
>> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all
>> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>>
>> Would it cause any adverse effects?
>
> Better question, why won't web designers stop using user agent strings 
> in their websites?
>

I agree, but no one can control that. If we can convince all Mozilla 
browser producers to just use Gecko (or another Mozilla specific string) 
in the user agent, then we only have to convince some 20 (??) producers.
0
Dirk
4/19/2017 10:21:29 PM
On 4/19/2017 2:39 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them 
> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
> 
> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites 
> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all 
> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
> 
> Would it cause any adverse effects?
> 

Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

Consider:
*  Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
*  Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
*  If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
*  If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??
0
David
4/19/2017 11:24:47 PM
On 4/19/2017 4:24 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 2:39 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them 
>> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>>
>> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites 
>> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all 
>> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>>
>> Would it cause any adverse effects?
>>
> 
> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
> 

In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
Web site that works completely only with Chrome.

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

Consider:
*  Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
*  Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
*  If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
*  If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??
0
David
4/19/2017 11:46:48 PM
David E. Ross wrote:
>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>
> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.



what site?

Smith
0
NFN
4/20/2017 3:55:19 AM
On 4/19/2017 8:55 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>>
>> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
>> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.
> 
> 
> 
> what site?
> 
> Smith
> 

Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
customer service.  They replied:
> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
> show a submit button at the bottom in red
The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I wonder
if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com>

Consider:
*  Most state mandate that drivers have liability insurance.
*  Employers are mandated to have worker's compensation insurance.
*  If you live in a flood zone, flood insurance is mandatory.
*  If your home has a mortgage, fire insurance is mandatory.

Why then is mandatory health insurance so bad??
0
David
4/20/2017 5:27:53 AM
David E. Ross wrote:

> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page
> does not show a Send button with SeaMonkey. While spoofing Firefox,
> it only shows a thin red rectangle.

On my machine, the page <http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php> 
shows a Captcha at bottom, and below that what appears to be the top 
edge of their red "Submit" button (cf. 
<http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>), but not enough of it that 
it's clickable -- just as you say. I tried filling all required fields, 
that didn't help.

> I sent a plain E-mail message to their customer service. They
> replied:
>
>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page
>> does show a submit button at the bottom in red
>
> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I
> wonder if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.

Plenty of Americans are illiterate, too. Sorry, without additional 
evidence, that's no proof of anything.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 6:08:23 AM
Earlier this evening, I wrote:

> On my machine, the page <http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php>
> shows a Captcha at bottom, and below that what appears to be the top
> edge of their red "Submit" button (cf.
> <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>), but not enough of it
> that it's clickable -- just as you say. I tried filling all required
> fields, that didn't help.

On second thought, that sliver may be clickable after all. The "Submit" 
button at <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php> doesn't trigger a 
cursor change from a pointer to a hand as most links do, but it works 
nevertheless, via a javascript. The red sliver you see also appears to 
be clickable in the same way -- I tested by leaving the entire form 
blank and ignoring the Captcha and just clicking it, and the site 
responded by telling me I needed to enter my first name.

It's still poor design (they hard-coded the height of the box containing 
all their fillable fields and made it too small), but if your objective 
is functionality, you may have it after all.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 6:54:06 AM
David E. Ross wrote on 20-04-17 07:27:
> On 4/19/2017 8:55 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>>>
>>> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
>>> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.
>>
>>
>> what site?
>>
>> Smith
>>
> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
> customer service.  They replied:
>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>> show a submit button at the bottom in red
> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I wonder
> if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.
>
So they say: We test our site, only, with Google-Chrome - If you don't 
use Google-Chrome - GO AWAY ! :-)
0
Ray_Net
4/20/2017 8:39:36 AM
On 20/04/2017 8:05 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 4/19/17 5:39 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them
>> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>>
>> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites
>> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all
>> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>>
>> Would it cause any adverse effects?
>
>
> How about just Mozilla/5.0, since all browsers user agent strings begin
> with that.
>
> The user agent string for Vivaldi.
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
> Chrome/57.0.2987.138 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.8.770.56
>
Yeah, I thought about this a long time ago, Walt, but as we all 
(including MSIE) Mozilla/5.0, why then bother to sniff at all??

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/20/2017 9:48:59 AM
On 20/04/2017 3:27 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 8:55 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>>>
>>> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
>>> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.
>>
>>
>>
>> what site?
>>
>> Smith
>>
>
> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
> customer service.  They replied:

Going to either the General Feedback and Store Feedback pages, I see 
"Submit" buttons even before I filled anything out. I believe I have 
"Advertise Firefox Compatibility" de-selected.

WFM!

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/20/2017 10:02:49 AM
Ray_Net wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote on 20-04-17 07:27:

>> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
>> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
>> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
>> customer service.  They replied:
>>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>>> show a submit button at the bottom in red
>> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I wonder
>> if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.
>>
> So they say: We test our site, only, with Google-Chrome - If you don't
> use Google-Chrome - GO AWAY ! :-)

A common bone-headded view. However I see the submit button on both 
contact forms Win10 SM 2.46 and  general.useragent.compatMode.firefox=true

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
0
Jonathan
4/20/2017 3:27:03 PM
David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 8:55 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>>>
>>> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
>>> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.
>>
>>
>>
>> what site?
>>
>> Smith
>>
>
> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
> customer service.  They replied:
>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>> show a submit button at the bottom in red
> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I wonder
> if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.
>

Shows a red "Submit" button here.

<http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php>

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 
SeaMonkey/2.46

Site also appears to work in all my Firefox versions. I did not do 
extensive testing.
0
WaltS48
4/20/2017 4:17:15 PM
David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/19/2017 8:55 PM, NFN Smith wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>>> Is not "Advertise Firefox compatibility" not working for you?
>>>>
>>> In any case, merely having Gecko will not suffice.  I just encountered a
>>> Web site that works completely only with Chrome.
>>
>>
>>
>> what site?
>>
>> Smith
>>

Since I know that you're a user of PrefBar, I'm assuming that you're 
doing UA spoofing...

> 
> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
> customer service.  

I just went there with Firefox (using a profile with default prefs) and 
had no problems.  I then went back in Seamonkey, and when I set my user 
agent to:

> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:51.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/51.0

I have no problems either, and that's saying something, as I make 
extensive use of NoScript and cookie blocking, enough where I have 
problems on a lot of sites.

What UA string are you showing them?  If you're not having issues with 
blocking of scripts and/or cookies, I'm inclined to believe that you're 
showing a UA that they don't like.

> They replied:
>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>> show a submit button at the bottom in red

> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I wonder
> if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.
> 

Probably just carelessness of wording, and somebody writing quickly. For 
all I know, it could be somebody was dictating through a voice-to-text 
tool that misinterpreted.

When this topic has come up before, I've noted two things:

- I'm not aware of other browser families, whose derivatives have this 
kind of issue. There's a number of chromium-derived browsers, not just 
Google Chrome (e.g., Iron, Epic, SlimJet, etc.), but perhaps there's not 
as much diversity in UI as with Mozilla browsers, or the others don't 
try to differentiate themselves win the UA.

- For web site tech support people, the demand for a specific browser 
(and emphasis on brand name) is mostly that they don't have time to even 
consider anything except for the most commonly used stuff.  Yes, 
Seamonkey has all Gecko capacities of Firefox, but a tech support 
person, when working with a non-technical user, doesn't have the time or 
capacity of trying to translate UI navigation to a different tool.

Even for me, as a Seamonkey user, I'm mostly fluent on what I can to 
with Edit -> Preferences, and where to find all the settings.  However, 
if I'm working with somebody in Firefox (or Thunderbird, for that 
matter), it's a bunch more effort for me to pull up a copy, go to Tools 
-> Options, and then find the correct setting there, and there are some 
Seamonkey prefs that don't have equivalents in the FF or TB user 
settings (short of resorting to tweaking about:config settings).

If a site operator supports Firefox, then anything that's not Firefox is 
merely extra fluff, and unless you've spent time there, the only 
difference between Seamonkey, Waterfox, Cyberfox, PaleMoon, IceDragon, 
Orca, IceWeasel, or any other Mozilla derivative is irrelevant, because 
"it's not Firefox, and we support only Firefox".

For the maintainers of Baja Fresh's web site, I agree that it's 
short-sighted that they only thing that they support is Chrome, but 
that's their choice. They've made the decision that they'll make sure 
that everything works under Chrome (knowing that it's now the majority 
browser), but not willing to take the time to make sure that other 
browsers are supported.  Notice that Safari and Internet Explorer/Edge 
aren't there, either.

Smith

0
NFN
4/20/2017 5:46:32 PM
David E. Ross wrote:
> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
> customer service.  They replied:
>> > We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>> > show a submit button at the bottom in red

I do not even see a form on the contact page, so what use would a submit 
button be?  I tried with 3 different browsers.

0
EE
4/20/2017 7:20:49 PM
On 4/20/17 3:20 PM, EE wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page does
>> not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox, it only
>> shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to their
>> customer service.  They replied:
>>> > We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page does
>>> > show a submit button at the bottom in red
>
> I do not even see a form on the contact page, so what use would a 
> submit button be?  I tried with 3 different browsers.
>
The underlined General Feedback and Store Feedback are links.

Click one.



-- 
Go Bucs and Pens!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS

0
WaltS48
4/20/2017 7:23:26 PM
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Earlier this evening, I wrote:
>
>> On my machine, the page <http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php>
>> shows a Captcha at bottom, and below that what appears to be the top
>> edge of their red "Submit" button (cf.
>> <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>), but not enough of it
>> that it's clickable -- just as you say. I tried filling all required
>> fields, that didn't help.
>
> On second thought, that sliver may be clickable after all. The "Submit"
> button at <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php> doesn't trigger a
> cursor change from a pointer to a hand as most links do, but it works
> nevertheless, via a javascript. The red sliver you see also appears to
> be clickable in the same way -- I tested by leaving the entire form
> blank and ignoring the Captcha and just clicking it, and the site
> responded by telling me I needed to enter my first name.
>
> It's still poor design (they hard-coded the height of the box containing
> all their fillable fields and made it too small), but if your objective
> is functionality, you may have it after all.
>
How is somebody supposed to know the exact address of the feedback page? 
  The only link from the hostname alone was "contact us", which did not 
lead to "storefeedback.php".  The latter page did indeed have a submit 
button.

0
EE
4/20/2017 7:26:52 PM
EE wrote:

> Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>> Earlier this evening, I wrote:
>>
>>> On my machine, the page
>>> <http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php> shows a Captcha at
>>> bottom, and below that what appears to be the top edge of their
>>> red "Submit" button (cf.
>>> <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>), but not enough of
>>> it that it's clickable -- just as you say. I tried filling all
>>> required fields, that didn't help.
>>
>> On second thought, that sliver may be clickable after all. The
>> "Submit" button at <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>
>> doesn't trigger a cursor change from a pointer to a hand as most
>> links do, but it works nevertheless, via a javascript. The red
>> sliver you see also appears to be clickable in the same way -- I
>> tested by leaving the entire form blank and ignoring the Captcha
>> and just clicking it, and the site responded by telling me I needed
>> to enter my first name.
>>
>> It's still poor design (they hard-coded the height of the box
>> containing all their fillable fields and made it too small), but if
>> your objective is functionality, you may have it after all.
>>
> How is somebody supposed to know the exact address of the feedback
> page? The only link from the hostname alone was "contact us", which
> did not lead to "storefeedback.php".  The latter page did indeed have
> a submit button.

When I went to the main contact page <http://www.bajafresh.com/contact>, 
I saw two links, "General Feedback," which pointed to 
<http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php>, and "Store Feedback," which 
pointed to <http://www.bajafresh.com/storefeedback.php>. There was more, 
but those were the two that seemed most interesting.

As a general rule, if you mouse over well-formed links without clicking, 
the target URL appears in the status bar. You can also right-click the 
link to choose "Open Link in New Tab," "Open Link in New Window," etc., 
and the context list also includes "Copy Link Location."

So that's "how somebody's supposed to know..."

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 7:35:48 PM
EE composed on 2017-04-20 12:20 (UTC-0700):

> I do not even see a form on the contact page, so what use would a submit 
> button be?  I tried with 3 different browsers.

Which 3, with which installed extensions?

I tried http://www.bajafresh.com/corpfeedback.php with 3 profiles, one Firefox,
one SM 2.46 with NoScript, one SM 2.48 without NoScript. Neither SM profile's UA
string includes Firefox. FF and 2.48 both produced a complete feedback form with
I am not a robot captcha and submit button. 2.46 even with temporarily allow all
this page enabled displays nothing of the form below the textarea (comments
pane), and with page styles disabled the page displays none of the form at all.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
0
Felix
4/20/2017 8:12:18 PM
Hi all,
I-m I'm sorry that I didn't respond last year, but I don't know if=20
someone can create an EMail list for  seamonkey for blind people? Since=20
the developer I say development is too technical and visual for a blind=20
people, can o say, I don't know what happen to the Seamonkey developer=20
development.
Please, not the same as what happened to the Mozilla Application suite.=20
It's my all day web brouser, EMail, Composer, ETC. I don't want=20
sepparate applications, I want all in one, internet suite that have many=20
potentials and is best than Firefox, Thunderbird, ETC.
If the development will be discontinued, I don't, realy, don't have any=20
alternative suite bassed on Mozilla App Suite nor SeaMonkey anyway on=20
the world. So please, continue the development, and I know, there's a=20
little updates like the 2 years passed, but please continue it.
In behave of the good,
L.C.H.

---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electr=F3nico en bu=
sca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

0
iso
4/20/2017 9:52:59 PM
David E. Ross wrote:

> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page
> does not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing Firefox,
> it only shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail message to
> their customer service.  They replied:
>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page
>> does show a submit button at the bottom in red
> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I
> wonder if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.

I found an easy fix: At Edit | Appearances | Fonts, set the minimum font 
size to "None" (on my machine, it was 14 pt). Then everything shrinks a 
bit and fits inside their layout box, and you can see the whole "Submit" 
button.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 11:07:20 PM
I just wrote:

> David E. Ross wrote:
>
>> Baja Fresh at <http://www.bajafresh.com/>.  The "Contact Us" page
>> does not show a Send button with SeaMonkey.  While spoofing
>> Firefox, it only shows a thin red rectangle.  I sent a plain E-mail
>> message to their customer service.  They replied:
>>> We use Windows 10 and Google Chrome and are [sic] feedback page
>>> does show a submit button at the bottom in red
>> The illiteracy -- "are" instead of "our" -- is quite telling.  I
>> wonder if Baja Fresh's customer service is not in the U.S.
>
> I found an easy fix: At Edit | Appearances | Fonts, set the minimum
> font size to "None" (on my machine, it was 14 pt). Then everything
> shrinks a bit and fits inside their layout box, and you can see the
> whole "Submit" button.

Correction: Make that Edit | Preferences | Appearances | Fonts...

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 11:08:08 PM
On 20/04/2017 7:48 PM, Daniel wrote:
> On 20/04/2017 8:05 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 4/19/17 5:39 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> There are a lot of Mozilla based browsers around, waht if all of them
>>> would just use Gecko -nnnnnn- in the user agent string?
>>>
>>> Now we have to disguise SeaMonkey as Firefox  to get certain web sites
>>> as Google to work properly, perhaps just using Gecko -nnnnnn- on all
>>> Mozilla browsers incl. Firefox could solve this problem.
>>>
>>> Would it cause any adverse effects?
>>
>>
>> How about just Mozilla/5.0, since all browsers user agent strings begin
>> with that.
>>
>> The user agent string for Vivaldi.
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko)
>> Chrome/57.0.2987.138 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/1.8.770.56
>>
> Yeah, I thought about this a long time ago, Walt, but as we all
> (including MSIE) Mozilla/5.0, why then bother to sniff at all??
>
s/but as we all (including MSIE) Mozilla/5.0/but as we all (including 
MSIE) *already use* Mozilla/5.0

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/21/2017 7:31:18 AM
Reply: