Oldfastmail works, new & beta don't

[mmerlinn]

All of the login pages loaded last week when I tried them.

Today old.fastmail.fm works.

fastmail.fm & beta.fastmail.fm won't load login page.

I get the following error for both of them:

"The security library has encountered an improperly formatted DER-message."

What is happening here? How do I fix it? I need to migrate out of old.fastmail.fm by the end of the month.

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by mmerlinn

All of the login pages loaded last week when I tried them.

Today old.fastmail.fm works.

fastmail.fm & beta.fastmail.fm won't load login page.

I get the following error for both of them:

"The security library has encountered an improperly formatted DER-message."

What is happening here? How do I fix it? I need to migrate out of old.fastmail.fm by the end of the month.

Are you using a very old browser? I speculate that your problem might be related to this thread.

To probably confirm this, see if https://old.fastmail.fm has the same problem.

Also, see if http://insecure.fastmail.fm works

[David]

Do the very old web browsers still work (with any version of Fastmail) I am wondering.

I admit to not having used them for awhile myself.

[mmerlinn]

Originally Posted by BritTim

To probably confirm this, see if https://old.fastmail.fm has the same problem.

Also, see if http://insecure.fastmail.fm works

First one gives the same message.

Second one logs in, but the next page (inbox page) takes 38 seconds to load as opposed to 4 seconds for old fastmail a factor of 10 times slower, which is why I have continued using old fastmail for years. It is fast. The new fastmail would be more appropriately termed slowmail. And the loaded page is a piece of garbage - If my programming looked that bad, I would be tempted to shoot myself.

[drew]

You can test to go into preferences for your browser
and delete the "cache" and cookies for Fastmail
so you get the latest versions of cookies that is compatible
with that new web page?

Which browser do you have? Look in Help
on the browser and tell us what brand
and version. I have FireFox 15.0.1
that is the latest official but one can test
as high versions as 18 if one join their
unofficial test.

Maybe you use the one build into Ms Win?
Is that most likely Internet Explorer?
What version do they have now as the latest update.

The makers of browser do tell us to always upgrade
for to have latest security to not be vulnerable.

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by mmerlinn

First one gives the same message.

Second one logs in, but the next page (inbox page) takes 38 seconds to load as opposed to 4 seconds for old fastmail a factor of 10 times slower, which is why I have continued using old fastmail for years. It is fast. The new fastmail would be more appropriately termed slowmail. And the loaded page is a piece of garbage - If my programming looked that bad, I would be tempted to shoot myself.

Like others, I would be interested in knowing the browser you are using. If it is very old, try running http://insecure.fastmail.fm with javascript support disabled. Old browsers are notoriously inefficient at processing javascript, and the current interface will work adequately with the scripting based enhancements disabled. I would also try downloading the latest version of Google Chrome (assuming your system supports it) and seeing how the speed is using that. For me, the current interface is very fast when using Chrome.

[drew]

I tested this one https://beta.fastmail.fm/
about one second from click on LogIn to seeing the inbox.

So something is odd with your browser? or the way it is set up.

Try to delete cache and cookies and test the other log ins
as adviced in the answers to your post. Tell us what helped.

[mmerlinn]

Ok, I spent the last hour or so testing and testing. Here are the results.

***********

In browser #1 I now get the following message:

"The security library has encountered an improperly formatted DER-encoded message."

for ALL of the following URLs:

http://fastmail.fm
http://beta.fastmail.fm
https://fastmail.fm
https://beta.fastmail.fm
https://old.fastmail.fm
https://insecure.fastmail.fm

The following two URLs present a login page:

1) http://old.fastmail.fm
Nice looking and usable
2) http://insecure.fastmail.fm
Ugly gray page with everything justified left down the page, but usable.

With js on

#1 loads a beautiful inbox page in 8 seconds
#2 loads a UGLY inbox page in 34 seconds with objects on top of other objects, missing buttons (no logout link, etc), and so on and is TOTALLY UNUSABLE.

With js off

#1 loads a properly laid out and formatted plain jane usable inbox in 8 seconds
#2 loads an UGLY inbox page in 8 seconds with objects all out of place, eg, folders are at bottom instead of to the left. It appears to be usable, but it would be a pain in the butt to use, especially since I need js on at the same time for other sites.

In browser #2 things are even worse.

The following URLs all came up and some had security alerts that I bypassed:

http://fastmail.fm
http://beta.fastmail.fm
http://old.fastmail.fm
http://insecure.fastmail.fm
https://fastmail.fm
https://beta.fastmail.fm
https://old.fastmail.fm
https://insecure.fastmail.fm

The following two URLs did not have text boxes for name and password so was unable to log in:

http://beta.fastmail.fm
https://beta.fastmail.fm

The rest all loaded the inbox upon logging in.

3) http://fastmail.fm
4) http://old.fastmail.fm
5) http://insecure.fastmail.fm
3) https://fastmail.fm
4) https://old.fastmail.fm
5) https://insecure.fastmail.fm

#4 and #5 all have problems in the login pages, but were usable.

#3 worked perfectly with a loading time of 15 seconds for the inbox, double browser #1, ughhh.
#4 loaded an ugly inbox page with nothing properly lined up in ONE MINUTE AND 25 seconds. HORRIBLE SPEED.
#5 loaded an ugly inbox page with nothing where it belonged in ONE MINUTE AND 40 seconds. DOUBLY HORRIBLE SPEED.

I did not even bother to see if #4 and #5 were even usable after loading. With slow speeds like that they are essentially useless.

I was unable to find where to disable js in browser #2, so have nothing to compare with.

Browser #1 is NS 4.77
Browser #2 is IE 5.1.7

#2 is a horrible browser. I don't use it unless I have no other choice.

There are no updated browsers after them. FF, Chrome, and others do not work.

Moving to a different machine is not an option. To do so would mean reinventing the wheel, taking at least 5 years to replace over 100,000 lines of code.

[drew]

Browser #1 is NS 4.77
Browser #2 is IE 5.1.7

#2 is a horrible browser. I don't use it unless I have no other choice.

There are no updated browsers after them. FF, Chrome, and others do not work.

Moving to a different machine is not an option. To do so would mean reinventing the wheel, taking at least 5 years to replace over 100,000 lines of code.

Searching the web they suggested year 2003 that one updated to
NS 7 but got the answer that it was not possible and then the thread
ended with a suggestion to at least upgrade to " 4.79 from 4.77?"

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=110203

I wonder about this part of your description.

"Moving to a different machine is not an option. To do so would mean reinventing the wheel, taking at least 5 years to replace over 100,000 lines of code"

So if I get it you tailored the code to work with NS 4.77?
So for to change to SeaMonkey or Mozilla Suite you would
have to change the whole OS for to get it to work?

You have a version of BSD or Solaris or a Linux from Scratch?

Which CPU do your have and how much memory? Is it that slow due to
DialUp or due to too little memory? If your HardDisk is big enough
for you to do a frugal install of Puppy Linux then you will get a dual boot
with a very small Linux some 1GB needed or you could even use the
DVD writer or a USB to boot and no need to change anything on the HD.

That way you would not need to write anything unless a very different CPU?

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by mmerlinn

Browser #1 is NS 4.77
Browser #2 is IE 5.1.7

#2 is a horrible browser. I don't use it unless I have no other choice.

There are no updated browsers after them. FF, Chrome, and others do not work.

Moving to a different machine is not an option. To do so would mean reinventing the wheel, taking at least 5 years to replace over 100,000 lines of code.

It seems as though you are using Netscape 4 and Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 95 or earlier (as neither IE6 nor NS7 is an option). Frankly, exposing a machine like that to the Internet seems very high risk but I shall assume you have evaluated that and have suitable procedures in place to ameliorate the risk.

IMHO, Fastmail cannot really be expected to base their service on 15 year old technologies. It is perfectly reasonable that all their developments for the last five years would be tested against nothing older than IE6.

I really need to know more about your current setup to comment further with any confidence, but I would definitely be looking for a way to run your current setup alongside something more modern. I would probably run the current setup as a virtualized environment. Your hardware might need upgrading, but a five year old dual core machine probably has 10 times the power of your current setup and would cost you less than US$100.

[tobiasdr]

Expecting a webmail service to retain support for 15 year old software these days borders to the absurd. Not saying I like that fact, just that it's the way it is. The life cycle for web browsers is more like three years.

Afaik, there's also still SMTP/POP support over which you can grab your mail... So... I don't think you'll be able to convince the support or something that this is an issue.

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by tobiasdr

Expecting a webmail service to retain support for 15 year old software these days borders to the absurd. Not saying I like that fact, just that it's the way it is. The life cycle for web browsers is more like three years.

Afaik, there's also still SMTP/POP support over which you can grab your mail... So... I don't think you'll be able to convince the support or something that this is an issue.

Agree totally, but if he is running 15 year old hardware, he probably has issues we find difficult even to remember: SMTP/POP is probably a non starter:

• His total stored email on FM may well be larger than his complete harddisk. A I recall, 2-3GB was a perfectly normal harddisk size in 1997.
• He would not have the option of storing data on an external device (except floppies or very expensive SCSI devices). USB did not yet exist (in a practical sense; there were a handful of malfunctioning USB 1.0 devices), and mail clients, thankfully, did not support mail folders spread over hundreds of floppies.
• Pretty much all email clients then (and some now) had a 2GB limit on mailbox size.

While his setup is a mess, he is right to be using webmail.

[mmerlinn]

Minor update to an OLD thread.

I was forced to move to FF from NS since NS simply cannot browse much of the web today. So, for internet browsing and email I have this Mac here and a Windoz machine at home both running FF. Hardly ever use these machines for anything else.

So, five years later, the vast majority of my work is still done on the machines referenced in the first post since I still cannot justify rewriting 100,000 lines of code and the current code will not run on newer machines. That work includes keeping my website current as well as uploading/downloading from the internet. Does not include email anymore, so, in theory, my problems that caused me to start this thread were resolved.

[Terry]

If you are running old crap then be prepared for a virus or 2