As popular Web mail Services integrate Online chatting as well, they prefer to use a Web browser rather than a desktop mail Client to access email. Each year now, a new generation of young people (mosdy students) discover the Internet and they start with Web mail straight away. Hence, it was a Standard practice to store email ‘offline’ using an email Client. If you did not regularly purge old messages, then your incoming mail would bounce with the dreaded ‘Inbox full’ error. Mailbox storage was limited to measly amounts such as 5MB or 10MB. This was at a time when most people had email accounts with their ISP or had free Web mail accounts with Hotmail or Yahoo. I n 2004, Google introduced its Gmail Service with a 1GB mailbox and free POP access. Again, most browsers today advertise compatibility with Mozilla/5.0 but that doesn’t mean they’re strictly limited to what that ancient engine can do.SeaMonkey Review – Learn to use and store email messages offline with Thunderbird and SeaMonkey. In short, just because a new browser advertises compatibility with an old browser doesn’t mean that the new browser doesn’t support newer features as well. So it would not be truthful (nor generally helpful) for SeaMonkey to explicitly advertise compatibility with those later versions. In addition to this core compatibility, a given version of SeaMonkey may also support certain features that later versions of Firefox support, though not necessarily all of them. It can generally be assumed that that version of SeaMonkey can do, at minimum, everything that that version of Firefox can do. A given version of SeaMonkey advertises compatibility with a certain version of Firefox because those two browser versions share the same core codebase. The issue here is that Seamonkey is telling sites by default that it is compatible with a much older version of Firefox rather than the version it is actually compatible with.ĭiscourse is doing the right thing in this case. If it’s for some reason undesirable or impractical to change the sniffing algorithm, then please change the behaviour upon detecting a supposedly incompatible user-agent: instead of (perhaps falsely) telling the user that their browser is “too old” and blocking further access, tell the user that their browser isn’t supported and link to the list of supported browsers, but give them an option of continuing anyway using their existing browser. (I suspect that it currently just looks for the names and versions of supported browsers, irrespective of their position within the User-Agent string.) After all, you’re not blocking browsers because they report an old version of Mozilla at the beginning of the string, so why should you block browsers because they report an old version of Firefox in the middle of the string? Please improve the User-Agent sniffing so that it checks all the way to the end of the string before deciding whether or not the user agent is “too old”. And even if these browsers are proactively blocked, it would be nice if Discourse did not report a bogus reason for doing so. I understand that Discourse may not wish to support browsers like SeaMonkey that are no longer mainstream, but it would be nice if those browers were not proactively blocked from accessing Discourse sites. If I change the User-Agent string as follows to hide Firefox compatibility (via Edit->Preferences->Advanced->HTTP Networking->User Agent String->Identify as SeaMonkey), then SeaMonkey can once again visit Discourse sites without any obvious problems: By default, SeaMonkey’s User-Agent string advertises Firefox compatibility: The problem seems to be inaccurate User-Agent sniffing on the part of Discourse. Indeed, if I override the browser’s User-Agent string, I find that everything seems to work fine. Discourse may have chosen not to support it, but it’s wrong to say that it’s “too old” to work with Discourse. However, I’m using the most recent version of my browser, SeaMonkey 2.53.13, which was released only four days ago. Please upgrade your browser to view rich content, log in and reply. Unfortunately, your browser is too old to work on this site. Logging in to the SDMB (and also ) today, I’m greeted with the following message:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |