Talk:User-Agent header/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bad English

The sentence "Spam bots and Web scrapers often use fake user agents. For example, the Android browser identifies itself as Safari in order to aid compatibility[4]." implies that the Android browser is a 'Spam bot' or 'Web scraper.' The phrase should be changed or moved to make it more clear to the reader, and to eliminate any unintended implications. 71.206.27.210 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Safari implementation

Small point: . "...Safari implemented systems whereby the user could select a false User-Agent string to send"

hmmm..

open Terminal defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1 then select from the debug menu.

It's not an option available by default or one Apple actively puts forward to consumers, it's a 'debugging' option, so although what you say is correct it is misleadingly weighted in this context.

An example of a Macintosh browser that offers/invites the user to change the User-Agent string through regular (non-debug) preferences would be iCab, and which as far as I can recall from testing on my own website logs doesn't append iCab to the end of the string either.

Opera 9 Preview 2 - I don't believe the user agent string has changed, it still reads Opera 9, etc. Someone want to confirm and add this? Preview 2 was released on Feb 7, 2006

IE7

In case anyone is wondering, I got the IE7.0b UA from this MSDN blog Aidan 08:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Revision format in Gecko browsers

Can someone confirm the "rv - 1.7.8" format in Gecko browsers? I haven't seen these in the wild, only "rv:1.7.8"

Sorry, that's a mistake, in a search/replace I did, when reformatting the lists. I intendended the "—" to appear *before* the agent string, and did not intend to change the agent string. I beleive it is fixed. Sorry, I'll be more careful in the future. --rob 05:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Stats

Most statistics software are able to recognize Opera and count it as such. use of Firefox or IE is not exaggerated because of UA spoofing.

Yes, Opera's spoofed user agent strings are always easily detectable as coming from Opera. However, Firefox extensions such as User Agent Switcher are able to change Firefox's user agent string so it can't be distinguished from the legitimate IE user agent string. I think it would be safe to say IE usage is probably overestimated, and usage of all other browsers may be underestimated. -- Schapel 03:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a new phenomena that I've run into - the number of Linux OS reported is going down while the unknown is going up rapidly. I don't know what it means - is it ubuntu?

I also read about a IP fingerprinting system that detected which OS it was based on other details.

Moozilla userAgent is appearing in webserver logs

What's the deal with this ? I've looked up Moozilla ( http://www.moo.ca/moozilla ) and it just says it's a Moo client (whatever that is). The stats for the page there show only 45,000 hits but somehow it managed to log 900,000 hits to our website (11% total browser share). I've seen similar large % stats on other sites.

There's something fishy going on with Moozilla and I don't think it's just that obscure browser.

Anyone have any ideas why Moozilla is showing up in such large volume?

Spoofing in Firefox

I would debate that Firefox supports useragent spoofing. I don't think that manually editing config files is normal configuration by users. This greatly contrasts browsers such as Opera, which have menu items for user-agent strings. --BarkerJr 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't even need to edit a config file. Just go to about:config and add a value for general.useragent.override. The way for normal users is to install an extension that adds this value automatically. The only reason Firefox extensions can change the user agent string is because Firefox has "implemented a system whereby the user could select a false User-Agent string to send," exactly as the article states. -- Schapel 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opera User-agent Masking

I'm not sure where would be best to put it, but the article should mention somewhere that Opera 9 can 'mask' itself as IE/Mozilla which doesn't have any mention of Opera in the user-agent string, as opposed to "others – e.g. Opera – duplicate the User-Agent string but add the genuine browser name to the end." from the article.

eg when Opera 'identifies' itself as IE, it has the user agent

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; X11; Linux i686; en) Opera 9.02

but when Opera 'masks' itself as IE, it has the user agent

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; X11; Linux i686; en)

BigBrownChunx 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

long list fire fox and opera

I fail to see the point in having such a long list for firefox and opera. But can't be bothered deciding which ones to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed many Firefox and Opera UA strings, mostly where there were several UA strings for the same version, and old beta and release candidate versions. I tried to keep variety in hardware and operating systems. Feel free to put one or two back if I did remove some important variety. -- Schapel 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Something needs to be done about these lists. It's unencyclopedic to have "non-list articles that are overrun with laundry lists. As a rule of thumb, if more than about 30% of a non-list article consists of a laundry list, it may be a problem." In this article, it's a problem. (Narkstraws 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

OK, would a separate article with just a list of user agent strings be appropriate? I was extremely disappointed to come here today and find that great resource (the most excellent list of strings) GONE. It was the best resource out there. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

They are incredibly useful for testing web links, though. Perhaps much of the list could be moved into Wikipedia namespace. –EdC 23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the huge lists should not be included in this article, especially under a section labeled "Example user-agent strings." IMO, this section would be better off showing just a few select strings to get the general idea of a user agent. However, I must agree that this list is extremely useful, and I'd hate to see it disappear. Rktur 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why the list was removed fom this article (as previously discussed), but that list was incredibly useful. Does it still exist anyplace in Wikipedia?

This great list has now been deleted and replaced with an uglier much less useful list. As far as i can tell there is no suitable alternative on the internet. Great... - meconomy 5/1/2007

There's an regularly updated list at user-agents.org, so I put a link to that in the article. That's the best list I've been able to find; the last update was two days ago, and there's an organized way to update it. I also reorganized the external links into three sections, and took out some of the less relevant links. We still have too many links to "click here to see your user-agent" sites, though. --John Nagle 02:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

After searching that site, I found far fewer Firefox User-Agents than had been listed here (thankfully, those us us in the know, can check history - at least that's still around).

I did not see how any visitor could update the list on that site either. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you need the list so badly, why don't you copy it from the history: [1] and then put it up on the web somewhere. Also I didn't remove the list, I just think it doesn't belong. (Narkstraws 19:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, perhaps on a blog or a wiki or something... —Ryan (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a small list, say Opera, FireFox, IE and Safari. 203.129.33.32 (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article becomes less useful with each edit

I just don't get it. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)