Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.seamonkey > #8705 > unrolled thread

LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM...

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.seamonkey

Contents

  LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-09-19 15:50 +0000
    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Barryedwin1 <mrbarryedw.20@aussiebroadband.com.au> - 2026-09-20 08:58 +0800
    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-09-19 21:58 -0400
      Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-19 21:36 -0500
        Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Barryedwin1 <mrbarryedw.20@aussiebroadband.com.au> - 2026-09-20 11:16 +0800
        Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-09-19 23:38 -0400
        Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-09-22 07:26 +0000
          Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 14:04 -0700
            Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-09-22 17:49 -0400
              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-09-23 01:48 +0000
              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-09-23 11:14 +0200
                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-09-23 11:29 +0200
                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 08:41 -0700
              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Dirk Fieldhouse <surname@gmx.net.plusremovethisandtherest.invalid> - 2026-09-23 11:00 +0100
              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 00:06 +0100
                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-23 18:50 -0500
                  Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-24 19:37 +1000
                    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-24 18:13 -0500
                      Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2026-09-24 23:55 +0000
                        Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-25 08:09 +0100
                          Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-25 19:10 +1000
                            Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 11:07 -0700
                              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-26 21:24 +1000
                                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 10:28 +0100
                            Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... David H Durgee <dhdurgee@privacy.net> - 2026-09-25 12:51 -0600
                              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-26 21:26 +1000
                                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-26 11:54 -0500
                                  Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-09-27 10:55 +0200
                                    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 10:37 +0100
                                      Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... R Daneel Olivaw <Danni@hyperspace.vogon.gov.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:23 +0200
                                    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-27 13:43 -0500
                                    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... "Paul B. Gallagher" <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> - 2026-09-27 16:48 -0400
                                    Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... David H Durgee <dhdurgee@privacy.net> - 2026-09-28 11:46 -0600
                                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... David H Durgee <dhdurgee@privacy.net> - 2026-09-27 08:13 -0600
            Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-23 18:58 +1000
              Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 08:40 -0700
                Re: LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM... Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2026-09-25 19:15 +1000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#8705 — LingoJam's web site shows "Web server is returning an unknown error Error code 520 ..." in SM...

https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com says:

"Cloudflare protects this website 
But, something went wrong trying to 
reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s 
most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."

However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit 
W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it 
works, but none of them fixed it.

What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
-- 
"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." --Philippians 2:3-4. Incoming aches, fever, etc. for getting "sick" again from my 9th COVID-19 & annual flu shots.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8706

Ant wrote on 19/9/26 11:50 pm:
> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com says:
> 
> "Cloudflare protects this website
> But, something went wrong trying to
> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
> 
> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
> works, but none of them fixed it.
> 
> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
> 
Ant, https://lingojam.com/ works for me on Linux in the nightly test:-
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.53.25
Build identifier: 20260917213445
downloaded from:-
<https://archive.seamonkey-project.org/#nightly/comm-253-latest/>
HTH Barry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8707

Ant wrote:
> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com says:
> 
> "Cloudflare protects this website
> But, something went wrong trying to
> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
> 
> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
> works, but none of them fixed it.
> 
> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)

Works fine for me with SM 2.53.24/Windows, but lots of sites protected 
by Cloudflare don't -- no error message, just a blank screen.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8708

Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 9/19/2026 8:58 PM:
> Ant wrote:
>> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com 
>> says:
>>
>> "Cloudflare protects this website
>> But, something went wrong trying to
>> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
>> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
>>
>> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
>> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
>> works, but none of them fixed it.
>>
>> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
> 
> Works fine for me with SM 2.53.24/Windows, but lots of sites protected 
> by Cloudflare don't -- no error message, just a blank screen.
> 

https://lingojam.com/ works fine for me too.  Seamonkey 2.53.24 (Win 11)

But if I just enter lingojam.com as the url, I get the cloudfare error 
message.  So try entering the entire url.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8709

Hank Rogers wrote on 20/9/26 10:36 am:
> Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 9/19/2026 8:58 PM:
>> Ant wrote:
>>> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com 
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "Cloudflare protects this website
>>> But, something went wrong trying to
>>> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
>>> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
>>>
>>> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
>>> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
>>> works, but none of them fixed it.
>>>
>>> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
>>
>> Works fine for me with SM 2.53.24/Windows, but lots of sites protected 
>> by Cloudflare don't -- no error message, just a blank screen.
>>
> 
> https://lingojam.com/ works fine for me too.  Seamonkey 2.53.24 (Win 11)
> 
> But if I just enter lingojam.com as the url, I get the cloudfare error 
> message.  So try entering the entire url.
> 
That seems to be it. Is that the case for you Ant?
lingojam.com gets the cloudflare message for me too, in the nightly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8710

Hank Rogers wrote:
> Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 9/19/2026 8:58 PM:
>> Ant wrote:
>>> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com 
>>> says:
>>>
>>> "Cloudflare protects this website
>>> But, something went wrong trying to
>>> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
>>> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
>>>
>>> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
>>> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
>>> works, but none of them fixed it.
>>>
>>> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
>>
>> Works fine for me with SM 2.53.24/Windows, but lots of sites protected 
>> by Cloudflare don't -- no error message, just a blank screen.
>>
> 
> https://lingojam.com/ works fine for me too.  Seamonkey 2.53.24 (Win 11)
> 
> But if I just enter lingojam.com as the url, I get the cloudfare error 
> message.  So try entering the entire url.

Yes, if I enter the short form, SM doesn't add "https://," it only 
enters "http://," and that provokes the error. You can get around it 
manually by inserting the "s" yourself.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8711

Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 9/19/2026 8:58 PM:
> > Ant wrote:
> >> https://www.cloudflare.com/5xx-error-landing/?utm_source=errorcode_520&utm_campaign=lingojam.com 
> >> says:
> >>
> >> "Cloudflare protects this website
> >> But, something went wrong trying to
> >> reach it If the problem isn?t resolved in the next few minutes, it?s
> >> most likely an issue with the web server you were trying to reach."
> >>
> >> However, no problems in Firefox v156.0.1 in the same, old updated 64-bit
> >> W10 Pro PC. I did try various user agents like Firefox to see if it
> >> works, but none of them fixed it.
> >>
> >> What's up? Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
> > 
> > Works fine for me with SM 2.53.24/Windows, but lots of sites protected 
> > by Cloudflare don't -- no error message, just a blank screen.
> > 

> https://lingojam.com/ works fine for me too.  Seamonkey 2.53.24 (Win 11)

> But if I just enter lingojam.com as the url, I get the cloudfare error 
> message.  So try entering the entire url.

https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. Interesting.

-- 
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." --2 Corinthians 13:14
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8712

Ant wrote:
> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. Interesting.

Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen 
weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar with 
and without www. as a prefix.
Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably get 
lost in the spam
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8713

Dave Yeo wrote:

> Ant wrote:
>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. 
>> Interesting.
> 
> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen 
> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar with 
> and without www. as a prefix.
> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably get 
> lost in the spam

Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to 
train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a 
bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all the 
zillions of webmasters to behave properly.

I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the 
user to make that choice.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8714

Paul B. Gallagher <mozilla@pbg-translations.com> wrote:
> Dave Yeo wrote:

> > Ant wrote:
> >> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. 
> >> Interesting.
> > 
> > Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen 
> > weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar with 
> > and without www. as a prefix.
> > Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably get 
> > lost in the spam

> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to 
> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a 
> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all the 
> zillions of webmasters to behave properly.

> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the 
> user to make that choice.

I wonder if anyone wrote up a suggestion in SM's Bugzilla.
-- 
"Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." --Romans 15:7. No more genuine ink cartridges 4 da 22 yrs. old HP PhotoSmart 8450 printer. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8716

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Dave Yeo wrote:
> 
>> Ant wrote:
>>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. 
>>> Interesting.
>>
>> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen 
>> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar 
>> with and without www. as a prefix.
>> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably 
>> get lost in the spam
> 
> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to 
> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a 
> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all the 
> zillions of webmasters to behave properly.
> 
> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the 
> user to make that choice.
> 

I believe there's an add-on which will do this (there's definitely one 
for FF but I'm not sure about SM).  Some of the sites I visit are http 
only so I'm not about to install that add-on myself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8717

R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
> Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>> Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Ant wrote:
>>>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't. 
>>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen 
>>> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar 
>>> with and without www. as a prefix.
>>> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably 
>>> get lost in the spam
>>
>> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to 
>> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a 
>> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all 
>> the zillions of webmasters to behave properly.
>>
>> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the 
>> user to make that choice.
>>
> 
> I believe there's an add-on which will do this (there's definitely one 
> for FF but I'm not sure about SM).  Some of the sites I visit are http 
> only so I'm not about to install that add-on myself.

ok, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smart-https-revived/ 
dies it for Firefox (but apparently there's a setting which enforces 
https directly).
Can't find anything for Seamonkey and I would not use it anyway if I did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8723

R Daneel Olivaw wrote:
> Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>> Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Ant wrote:
>>>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/ doesn't.
>>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen
>>> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar
>>> with and without www. as a prefix.
>>> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably
>>> get lost in the spam
>>
>> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to
>> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a
>> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all
>> the zillions of webmasters to behave properly.
>>
>> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the
>> user to make that choice.
>>
>
> I believe there's an add-on which will do this (there's definitely one
> for FF but I'm not sure about SM).  Some of the sites I visit are http
> only so I'm not about to install that add-on myself.

Ideally there is a fallback so if https fails to load the page, the 
browser tries http
Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8718

On 22/09/2026 22:49, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

>...>
> 
> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to
> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a
> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all the
> zillions of webmasters to behave properly.
> 
> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the
> user to make that choice.
> 

NoScript Classic has a function for enforcing HTTPS:
<https://classic.noscript.net/faq#faqsec6>

Adding lingojam.com to the "Force the following sites..." list at
Options>Advanced>HTTPS>Behavior makes the CF error go away. Maybe a *
would enforce it for all sites?

The HTTPS option is a further benefit beyond its normal one of making
the WWW bearable.

/df

-- 
London
UK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8719

On 2026-09-22, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

> Dave Yeo wrote:
>
>> Ant wrote:
>>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/
>>> doesn't. Interesting.
>>
>> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen
>> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar
>> with and without www. as a prefix.
>> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably
>> get lost in the spam
>
> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to
> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a
> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all
> the zillions of webmasters to behave properly.

It could go either way, webmasters and administrators could misconfigure
it so that it only works over HTTP.

There's already support for a website to indicate they require https
(HSTS), but that, too, can get misconfigured on their side.

> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the
> user to make that choice.

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8720

Nuno Silva wrote on 9/23/2026 6:06 PM:
> On 2026-09-22, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> 
>> Dave Yeo wrote:
>>
>>> Ant wrote:
>>>> https://lingojam.com/ worked, but http://lingojam.com/
>>>> doesn't. Interesting.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the webmaster hasn't redirected http to https. I've seen
>>> weirdness with other sites when there was no redirect. Also similar
>>> with and without www. as a prefix.
>>> Could always try letting them know, though any message will probably
>>> get lost in the spam
>>
>> Given current trends in the computer business, would it make sense to
>> train SM to add "https://" instead of "http://" when the user enters a
>> bare URL without either? Then our users wouldn't have to rely on all
>> the zillions of webmasters to behave properly.
> 
> It could go either way, webmasters and administrators could misconfigure
> it so that it only works over HTTP.
> 
> There's already support for a website to indicate they require https
> (HSTS), but that, too, can get misconfigured on their side.
> 
>> I looked at our preference options and couldn't find any way for the
>> user to make that choice.
> 

It's almost a moot point because seamonkey works on fewer and fewer web 
pages every day.  And this is for a wide variety of reasons, not just 
HTTPS issues.

Seamonkey is dying.  I hate this as much as all of you, but there just 
isn't enough horsepower to keep it up to date.  There are only a few 
knowledgeable programmers still working and doing their best.  But NOT 
enough.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8721

On 24/09/2026 9:50 am, Hank Rogers wrote:

<Snip>

> Seamonkey is dying.  I hate this as much as all of you, but there just 
> isn't enough horsepower to keep it up to date.  There are only a few 
> knowledgeable programmers still working and doing their best.  But NOT 
> enough.
> 
Yeap, I think you are correct ... an ever reducing Team of Devs are 
doing THE best they can to keep SeaMonkey as functional as possible.

I've only got Five, maybe ten, years left in me. Hopefully SM and its 
Devs have at least that long in them.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8724

Daniel70 wrote on 9/24/2026 4:37 AM:
> On 24/09/2026 9:50 am, Hank Rogers wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>> Seamonkey is dying.  I hate this as much as all of you, but there just 
>> isn't enough horsepower to keep it up to date.  There are only a few 
>> knowledgeable programmers still working and doing their best.  But NOT 
>> enough.
>>
> Yeap, I think you are correct ... an ever reducing Team of Devs are 
> doing THE best they can to keep SeaMonkey as functional as possible.
> 
> I've only got Five, maybe ten, years left in me. Hopefully SM and its 
> Devs have at least that long in them.

I'm not sure I have even that many years, Daniel, but I still use 
seamonkey every day.

It doesn't seem that long ago that I only rarely needed firefox, but now 
it's many, many times per day.  It won't last too much longer for some 
of us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8725

Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Daniel70 wrote on 9/24/2026 4:37 AM:
> > On 24/09/2026 9:50 am, Hank Rogers wrote:
> > 
> > <Snip>
> > 
> >> Seamonkey is dying.  I hate this as much as all of you, but there just 
> >> isn't enough horsepower to keep it up to date.  There are only a few 
> >> knowledgeable programmers still working and doing their best.  But NOT 
> >> enough.
> >>
> > Yeap, I think you are correct ... an ever reducing Team of Devs are 
> > doing THE best they can to keep SeaMonkey as functional as possible.
> > 
> > I've only got Five, maybe ten, years left in me. Hopefully SM and its 
> > Devs have at least that long in them.

> I'm not sure I have even that many years, Daniel, but I still use 
> seamonkey every day.

> It doesn't seem that long ago that I only rarely needed firefox, but now 
> it's many, many times per day.  It won't last too much longer for some 
> of us.

Same. :(
-- 
"We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope." --Romans 5:3-4
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8726

On 2026-09-25, Ant wrote:

> Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Daniel70 wrote on 9/24/2026 4:37 AM:
>> > On 24/09/2026 9:50 am, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> > 
>> > <Snip>
>> > 
>> >> Seamonkey is dying.  I hate this as much as all of you, but there just 
>> >> isn't enough horsepower to keep it up to date.  There are only a few 
>> >> knowledgeable programmers still working and doing their best.  But NOT 
>> >> enough.
>> >>
>> > Yeap, I think you are correct ... an ever reducing Team of Devs are 
>> > doing THE best they can to keep SeaMonkey as functional as possible.
>> > 
>> > I've only got Five, maybe ten, years left in me. Hopefully SM and its 
>> > Devs have at least that long in them.
>
>> I'm not sure I have even that many years, Daniel, but I still use 
>> seamonkey every day.
>
>> It doesn't seem that long ago that I only rarely needed firefox, but now 
>> it's many, many times per day.  It won't last too much longer for some 
>> of us.
>
> Same. :(

The current situation is a bottleneck that prevents backporting some of
the newer changes until it has been handled. Hopefully after that
there'll be better compatiblity again, although IMHO 1) JS frameworks
would learn to do graceful degradation, and 2) websites would just dump
Cloudflare (unless Cloudflare goes back to graceful degradation in their
Turnstile-based BIC too).

It's sad that projects like Mastodon see no issue with making their web
UI only work in a few browsers (it requiring JS at all is also another
issue). It doesn't even try to offer an alternative to endless scroll?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.seamonkey

csiph-web