Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > alt.comp.software.seamonkey > #8375

Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle

Show all headers | View raw

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Brian Schrimpp wrote:
>> Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>> Either way, the putative purpose of the captcha is to test whether 
>>> I'm a human being, and even when I prove that I am, they reject me. 
>>> As soon as I switch to another browser, I pass. So it's not my 
>>> network, it's my SeaMonkey that they're rejecting.
>>
>> Your SeaMonkey 2.53.22 is based on a much older version of Firefox and 
>> does not support newer JavaScript features. When a CAPTCHA uses those 
>> newer features, the CAPTCHA may respond as if JavaScript is not 
>> working properly (line 2 of the "reasons may include" above).
>>
>>>>> My theory is they didn't like my user agent string.
>>
>> You could try this theory out by changing the user-agent string 
>> (about:config preference general.useragent.override).
> 
> OK, I know how to do that and have done so for several sites. But which 
> site do I lie to for this purpose? cbo.gov (the site I'm trying to view, 
> which reports the block), or <geo.captcha-delivery.com> (the site that 
> serves the captcha)?

For your initial test, lie to both sites to cover all bases. If this 
gives you access [and I predict it will not], you could then test them 
individually to see which one is the one.

It is much more likely the CAPTCHA is using coding that SeaMonkey can't 
handle, as Daniel70's first reply in this thread says.

Back to alt.comp.software.seamonkey | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Another "security" feature that SM can't handle "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-01-08 00:13 -0500
  Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Brian Schrimpp <schrimppb@no-spam.invalid> - 2026-01-08 09:45 +0100
    Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-01-08 10:40 -0500
      Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2026-01-08 17:07 +0100
        Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-01-09 22:01 +1100
        Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.invalid> - 2026-01-09 11:09 +0000
      Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Brian Schrimpp <schrimppb@no-spam.invalid> - 2026-01-10 09:48 +0100
        Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-01-10 15:04 -0500
          Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-01-11 18:35 +1100
          Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Brian Schrimpp <schrimppb@no-spam.invalid> - 2026-01-11 09:44 +0100
            Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-01-11 12:45 -0500
              Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-01-12 20:05 +1100
                Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-01-13 01:34 +0000
                Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2026-01-13 02:39 +0100
                Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-01-14 03:42 +0000
                Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-01-14 19:27 +1100
  Re: Another "security" feature that SM can't handle ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-01-09 07:55 +0000

csiph-web