关于用户代理字符串的大量噪音 [英] Lots of noise about user agent strings
问题描述
似乎移动应用程序的开发人员非常专注于UA
嗅探：
< URL： http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
-
Rob
Seems developers of mobile applications are pretty much devoted to UA
sniffing:
<URL: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
--
Rob
推荐答案
RobG写道：
RobG wrote:
似乎移动应用程序的开发人员非常忠诚地向UA嗅探
：
< URL： http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
Seems developers of mobile applications are pretty much devoted
to UA sniffing:
<URL: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
是的，似乎有人犯了一个严重的错误抱怨
关于导致错误的现实。引用那个页面
表明这个错误背后有很多错误的信念： -
|从Web开始以来，HTTP客户端一直都是
|有唯一的用户代理（UA）字符串让服务器知道
|他们是谁这个机制被手机接管了
|浏览器制造商虽然有一些例外
|由于设备制造商的邋iness，准确地说
|那99.99％的设备都有独特的UA字符串
|这可以与品牌，型号和一堆其他相关联。
|关于设备属性的信息。
HTTP客户端现在已经有十多年没有独特的UA字符串，
甚至UA字符串与其他人不同是明确的
旨在防止服务器知道正在使用哪个客户端
（因此在IE的UA标题前面的Mozilla位，它只有误导服务器才能使用
。
绝对不是99.99％的设备都有独特的UA
字符串。我可能不会经常看到移动设备浏览器但是我已经检查了绝大多数可编写脚本的浏览器
有或多或少的UA字符串与IE 6的
无法区分。
底线仍然是HTTP规范将
用户代理标头定义为一个任意的字符序列并没有
甚至要求两个
连续请求的字符序列相同，更不用说在任何意义上都是唯一的。任何尝试
来处理以这种方式指定的东西作为
信息的来源将是一个非常明显的错误。
Richard。
Yes, it appears to be someone who has made a serious mistake complaining
about the reality that made it a mistake. Quoting a bit of that page
shows that quite a few false beliefs were behind the mistake:-
| All the way since the inception of the web, HTTP clients have
| had unique User-Agent (UA) strings which let the server know
| who they were. This mechanism was taken over as-is by mobile
| browser manufacturers. While there have been a few exceptions
| due to device manufacturer''s sloppiness, it is accurate to say
| that 99.99% of the devices out there have unique UA strings
| which can be associated to brand, model and a bunch of other
| info about the device properties.
HTTP clients have not had unique UA strings for well over a decade now,
and even UA strings that were distinct from others were explicitly
designed to prevent the server from knowing which client was being used
(hence the "Mozilla" bit at the front of IE''s UA header, it was put
there only to mislead servers).
And it is absolutely not the case the 99.99% of devices have unique UA
strings. I may not get to look at mobile device browsers that often but
to date the vast majority of the scriptable browsers I have examined
have had UA strings that were more or less indistinguishable from those
of IE 6.
The bottom line remains that the HTTP specification defines the
User-Agent header as an arbitrary sequence of characters and does not
even require that the sequence of characters be the same for two
consecutive requests, let alone being in any sense unique. Any attempt
to treat something that is specified in that way as a source of
information is going to be a very obvious mistake.
Richard.
RobG meinte：
RobG meinte:
似乎移动应用程序的开发人员很漂亮非常致力于UA
嗅探：
< URL： http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
Seems developers of mobile applications are pretty much devoted to UA
sniffing:
<URL: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm >
一位真正的专家：
自网络诞生以来，HTTP客户端一直都是这样的/>
唯一的用户代理（UA）字符串，让服务器知道他们是谁。
他应该尝试理解网络技术而不是写43kB
的咆哮。
Gregor
-
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com :::Bildagenturfürdenalpinen Raum
A real expert:
"All the way since the inception of the web, HTTP clients have had
unique User-Agent (UA) strings which let the server know who they were."
He should probably try to understand web technologies and not write 43kB
of rant.
Gregor
--
http://photo.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://web.gregorkofler.com ::: meine JS-Spielwiese
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
On 5月27日下午2:23，Gregor Kofler< use ... @ gregorkofler.atwrote：
On May 27, 2:23 pm, Gregor Kofler <use...@gregorkofler.atwrote:
RobG meinte：
RobG meinte:
似乎移动应用程序的开发人员非常专注于UA
嗅探：
Seems developers of mobile applications are pretty much devoted to UA
sniffing:
< URL：http：// wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm>
<URL:http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/vodafonerant/index.htm>
一位真正的专家：
自从网络诞生以来，HTTP客户端一直都是这样的/>
唯一的用户代理（UA）字符串，让服务器知道他们是谁。
A real expert:
"All the way since the inception of the web, HTTP clients have had
unique User-Agent (UA) strings which let the server know who they were."
您有什么违法行为？
用户代理字符串旨在让服务器知道谁在请求
页面，这就是为什么它们被创建以及它们如何被使用的原因
Mosaic。您的版本是否是NCSA发明的美化
HTTP请求的装饰？很抱歉，这是完全错误的
虽然是半诗意的版本。
User-Agent对每个浏览器和每个浏览器版本都是唯一的，除非
浏览器代码由EULA暴力中的最终
用户手动反向设计和更改。这样的情况肯定是可能的，但
严重的解决方案通常不会说用户使用
黑客软件来浏览网页：除非是特殊的统计数据收集器。
Vodafon问题是一个问题，导致所涉及的b / b
MMS /媒体推送提供商的资金损失。这个问题并不致命，因为
代理信息没有被删除但只是重新格式化 - 但是这样的事情是不允许的，不管怎么说，中间服务器一定不能重构
HTTP请求。否则有一天输入example.com会在example.net中结束
，因为某些中间服务器的管理员会决定
example.net更好目标地址。很容易启动
并且更难停下来，是的，这样的事情应该在开头就被挤出来。
。
What offense to you have to that?
User-Agent string is intended to let the server know who is requesting
the page, this is why they were created and how they are used since
Mosaic. Is your version being that it is a NCSA invented beatifying
ornament of HTTP request? Sorry to say then that it is utterly wrong
though semi-poetic version.
User-Agent are unique to each browser and each browser version unless
the browser code is manually reverse-engineered and altered by the end
user in violence of EULA. Such situation is definitely possible but
serious solutions do not normally account users surfing the Web with
hacked software: unless it is a special statistics collector.
The Vodafon problem is a problem causing money loss to the involved
MMS / media push providers. The problem is not deadly because the
agent info is not removed but only reformatted - yet such things are
not allowed anyway, the intermediary servers must not be refactoring
HTTP requests. Otherwise one day by typing example.com one will end up
in example.net because some intermediary server''s admin will decide
that example.net is better as the target address. It is easy to start
and much harder to stop so, yes, such things should be squeezed out
right at the beginning.
这篇关于关于用户代理字符串的大量噪音的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
