Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT
A quick grep through v. 1.0.0 revealed no such list (i grepped for 'user_' and 'mozilla' case insensitive). darren Jason Murphy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect: I remember that SlashCode (The ModPerl scripts that run Slashdot.org) has a big listing of HTTP_USER_AGENT's in it. You might want to head over to www.slashcode.com and get SlashCode and find it in there. Its a small download. -- Jason Murphy System Administrator Lawinfo.com 1-800-397-3743 ex: 133 - Original Message - From: "Bill Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "raptor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:59 AM Subject: Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT on 3/31/00 2:43 PM, raptor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTTP_USER_AGENT : IE3.x,4.x,5,5.5 NN3.x,4.x may be other too... W3C maybe ? - FCCJ * 501 W State St * Jacksonville, Fl 32202 * 904/632-3089 - -- Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT
So the moral of the story is, don't ever trust the client for anything important. I still think that's missing an important point: YOU CAN'T HAVE a canonical listing of HTTP_USER_AGENT values, because NO SUCH ANIMAL exists :) All HTTP_USER_AGENT is is a string supplied by the client, and as long as the client follows the spec for what the string is supposed to look like [ Client/Version (param; param; ... param) ] then it is a valid response. I've written client scripts before that supplied values like "HungrySalmon/1.0" for HTTP_USER_AGENT. Nor can you trust it: it's a simple matter of editing one string table inside Netscape to change it (even easier than replacing the "traveling N"; IIRC, Netscape's "customization" kit for corp. clients even supports it directly), and if the agent is a client script, it's even easier to spoof (Exercise for the reader: write an HTTP client script using LWP that reports its user agent as "Navigator/3.04"; no, I don't want to see it when you're done -- I didn't collect homework when I did teach, I'm not going to start now *g*) in your own widgets. At one point I was involved with a project to collect the HTTP_USER_AGENT strings reported by spiders, and associating them with the search engine they belonged to, so that the "most appropriate" set of meta-information for that particular search engine could be returned... and it wasn't that long of a list. So you can get probably 99% of the information you want fairly easily, but I still wouldn't trust it. Incidentally, if you either use the (deprecated) Agent_Log directive or used the "combined" logfile format, you can extract a list of HTTP_USER_AGENT strings from your own server logs :) And now, you know not to be alarmed when you find your site being visited by someone using "FlailingJellyfish/5.7" :) -- Jason Murphy System Administrator Lawinfo.com 1-800-397-3743 ex: 133 Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida Windsor, CT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Jason Murphy wrote: I remember that SlashCode (The ModPerl scripts that run Slashdot.org) has a big listing of HTTP_USER_AGENT's in it. You might want to head over to www.slashcode.com and get SlashCode and find it in there. Its a small download. I still think that's missing an important point: YOU CAN'T HAVE a canonical listing of HTTP_USER_AGENT values, because NO SUCH ANIMAL exists :) All HTTP_USER_AGENT is is a string supplied by the client, and as long as the client follows the spec for what the string is supposed to look like [ Client/Version (param; param; ... param) ] then it is a valid response. I've written client scripts before that supplied values like "HungrySalmon/1.0" for HTTP_USER_AGENT. Nor can you trust it: it's a simple matter of editing one string table inside Netscape to change it (even easier than replacing the "traveling N"; IIRC, Netscape's "customization" kit for corp. clients even supports it directly), and if the agent is a client script, it's even easier to spoof (Exercise for the reader: write an HTTP client script using LWP that reports its user agent as "Navigator/3.04"; no, I don't want to see it when you're done -- I didn't collect homework when I did teach, I'm not going to start now *g*) in your own widgets. At one point I was involved with a project to collect the HTTP_USER_AGENT strings reported by spiders, and associating them with the search engine they belonged to, so that the "most appropriate" set of meta-information for that particular search engine could be returned... and it wasn't that long of a list. So you can get probably 99% of the information you want fairly easily, but I still wouldn't trust it. Incidentally, if you either use the (deprecated) Agent_Log directive or used the "combined" logfile format, you can extract a list of HTTP_USER_AGENT strings from your own server logs :) And now, you know not to be alarmed when you find your site being visited by someone using "FlailingJellyfish/5.7" :) Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida Windsor, CT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT
on 3/31/00 2:43 PM, raptor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTTP_USER_AGENT : IE3.x,4.x,5,5.5 NN3.x,4.x may be other too... W3C maybe ? - FCCJ * 501 W State St * Jacksonville, Fl 32202 * 904/632-3089 -
Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT
I remember that SlashCode (The ModPerl scripts that run Slashdot.org) has a big listing of HTTP_USER_AGENT's in it. You might want to head over to www.slashcode.com and get SlashCode and find it in there. Its a small download. -- Jason Murphy System Administrator Lawinfo.com 1-800-397-3743 ex: 133 - Original Message - From: "Bill Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "raptor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:59 AM Subject: Re: HTTP_USER_AGENT on 3/31/00 2:43 PM, raptor at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HTTP_USER_AGENT : IE3.x,4.x,5,5.5 NN3.x,4.x may be other too... W3C maybe ? - FCCJ * 501 W State St * Jacksonville, Fl 32202 * 904/632-3089 -
