Andrew wrote:
> It appears that when browser sniffers see rv:11 they deduce the browser
> in use is IE 11.  Firefox is changing that part of their identification
> string back to rv:109 until version 120 is released this coming November.

I have a test machine and the software there is often at a newer level
than on the normal one.

My Firefox User Agent there is
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
"We no longer support Internet Explorer". They offered various
alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.

Total morons.
"Forget this site".

Ant wrote:
> Don Spam's Reckless Son <hyperspace.flyover@vogon.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> It appears that when browser sniffers see rv:11 they deduce the browser
>>> in use is IE 11.  Firefox is changing that part of their identification
>>> string back to rv:109 until version 120 is released this coming November.
>
>> I have a test machine and the software there is often at a newer level
>> than on the normal one.
>
>> My Firefox User Agent there is
>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0
>
>> Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
>> "We no longer support Internet Explorer". They offered various
>> alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.
>
>> Total morons.
>> "Forget this site".
>
> Which web site?
>

I got there via a search engine and then removed it from my history so
it was not going to be offered by an auto-complete in the future.

Don Spam's Reckless Son <hyperspace.flyover@vogon.gov.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > It appears that when browser sniffers see rv:11 they deduce the browser
> > in use is IE 11.  Firefox is changing that part of their identification
> > string back to rv:109 until version 120 is released this coming November.

> I have a test machine and the software there is often at a newer level
> than on the normal one.

> My Firefox User Agent there is
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0

> Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
> "We no longer support Internet Explorer". They offered various
> alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.

> Total morons.
> "Forget this site".

Which web site?
--
"Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph." --Amos 5:15. Will hump day be quiet even though minor unexpectations (5h of Z, ELN, colony, etc.) came up?
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| |
\ _ /
( )

Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote on 12/4/23 11:36 pm:
> Andrew wrote:
>> It appears that when browser sniffers see rv:11 they deduce the
>> browser in use is IE 11.  Firefox is changing that part of their
>> identification string back to rv:109 until version 120 is released
>> this coming November.
>
> I have a test machine and the software there is often at a newer level
> than on the normal one.
>
> My Firefox User Agent there is
>     Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0
>
> Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
> "We no longer support Internet Explorer".  They offered various
> alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.
>
> Total morons.
> "Forget this site".

Could they, perhaps, have been misreading/interrupting the 'X11' in the
UA as some sort of 'IE11'?? (Did IE get to a Ver 11??)
--
Daniel

Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:
> My Firefox User Agent there is
>     Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/112.0
>
> Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
> "We no longer support Internet Explorer".  They offered various
> alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.

Bad user agent sniffing, and likely bad site design.

Even if you are running from Linux, you could show a Windows platform.
As suggested further down-thread, it may be that the site is complaining
about either X11 or the explicit designation of Linux.

The underlying problem is likely to be that the site developer assumes
that nearly everybody is running Chrome (or some variant, such as Edge),
and not willing to do much in the way of cross-platform support. In the
developer's view, if it works in Chrome, that's sufficient, and if
you're using something else, he considers that to be your problem and
not his.

For what it's worth, I've occasionally encountered sites that won't work
properly on any version Firefox, not even with a fresh profile without
any preferences tweaking. I can think of one in particular that I had
to use Chrome to buy from, but I won't go back to that site again, at
least not voluntarily. Unfortunately, that's one of the sites that is
aggressive about taking addresses collected in purchasing and adding to
their customer engagement mailing lists (without permission), and where
the only way to stop additional mail is to go through an opt-out form on
their site (which, of course, requires use of a Chromium browser).

Smith

Daniel65 wrote:
> Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote on 12/4/23 11:36 pm:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> It appears that when browser sniffers see rv:11 they deduce the
>>> browser in use is IE 11.  Firefox is changing that part of their
>>> identification string back to rv:109 until version 120 is released
>>> this coming November.
>>
>> I have a test machine and the software there is often at a newer level
>> than on the normal one.
>>
>> My Firefox User Agent there is
>>      Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Firefox/112.0
>>
>> Today I really came across a site which rejected that Firefox because
>> "We no longer support Internet Explorer".  They offered various
>> alternatives and I think one of them was even Firefox.
>>
>> Total morons.
>> "Forget this site".
>
> Could they, perhaps, have been misreading/interrupting the 'X11' in the
> UA as some sort of 'IE11'?? (Did IE get to a Ver 11??)

IE did get to version 11. The Firefox people know about the problem
with rv:11 but had presumably thought nobody could be moronic enough to
take objection to Firefox/11. If I still had the url of the site I'd
feed it into the Brave browser but - as I said - I removed it from my
Firefox history so there was no danger of me going to that idiotic place
again.