Domas wrote:
> We don't use UA as first step of analysis, it was helpful tertiary tool...

But it's now being claimed (one might assume, in defense of the
new policy) that disallowing missing User-Agent strings is cutting
20-50% of the (presumably undesirable) load.  Which sounds pretty
primary.  So which is it?

Presumably some percentage of that 20-50% will come back as the
spammers realize they have to supply the string.  Presumably we
then start playing whack-a-mole.

Presumably there's a plan for what to do when the spammers begin
supplying a new, random string every time.

(I do worry about where this is going, though.)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to