This makes sense, but thinking about it, it doesn't seem plausible.
If I were whitelisting user agents, there are three ways I'd consider
doing it.
Explicit full string:
* "Mozilla/5.0 QGIS/3.4.3-Madeira" - except of course that'd break next
time someone updates QGIS by even a point version. So I doubt anyone is
doing that; too much maintenance. And if they *are* doing this, well
then they'll have to update their whitelist with the new user agent on
the new release whether it includes "Mozilla" or not.
* Some sort of regexp looking for that structure (i.e. "Mozilla/5.0
QGIS/[0-9].[0-9]...") but allow any set of numbers. I can't conceive of
when this would be the best option or even a "good" option - it's just
asking for problems with version numbers (what happens when QGIS gets to
double-digits in any version field for instance?). I don't doubt it may
solve a particular problem somewhere maybe, but I would hope there
wouldn't be many using this method (and of course, this is assuming that
the "Mozilla" is part of the regex).
* Search the user agent for the string "QGIS". I do some things that
look at user-agents and this is what I do. It's easily the simplest and
definitely the most fool-proof way to validate a client is at least
claiming to be QGIS.
So I'd suggest this is probably not something to worry about.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 2019-02-24 22:44, Nyall Dawson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 at 04:38, Jonathan Moules
<jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote:
Hi Richard,
I don't think without more information it's clear precisely what QGIS
should change to help them?
Indeed, personally I'm still not sure what the current problem is for
them. I get that they have some over-users of their service and need to
curtail this (a very tricky problem), but what's their current solution
and how does a user-agent change help it?
I'd suggest against QGIS using different user-agents for destinations as
was suggested earlier in the thread because down that road lies madness
(it's a highly opaque thing that /will/ bite people as they try and
debug issues).
My main concern is possible regressions if we flip to a
"less-standard" user agent. It's highly likely that there's servers
out there which block requests based on user agent whitelists, so by
changing the user agent across the whole app we'd potentially be
blocking access to these servers.
Nyall
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 23/02/2019 11:17, Richard Duivenvoorde wrote:
For what I understand, they use some cookie-based trick to help maintain
their QOS (and then to make it possible to throttle a very demanding web
application?).
This made sense to me. Also because I really do not envy maintainers of
such services: it is hard to keep up such free services (as an example
(see irc log) he mentioned that certain transportation software started
to poll the reverse geocoding every second in every car). I think it's
pretty important for us to have OSM, and be helpfull to them.
But if Firefishy/Grant is willing to give more details (he is in bcc)
that would be great.
Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
