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. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> President Trump: Please stop using Twitter. We need to hear your voice and see you talking. We need to know when your message is really your own and not your attorney's. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
