3 ms·
I approach this as an end user. I'm using a tool, my browser in this case, to make a request for resources from a server. I can choose to make any request I lik
by nkrisc 7y ago
I approach this as an end user. I'm using a tool, my browser in this case, to make a request for resources from a server. I can choose to make any request I like, formed in any way I choose. The server can choose to respond in any way it likes, compatibility warnings and all.
However if a server refuses to serve me a response if I use one client over another, but is still willing to serve me the user, I do believe it is well within my right to disguise myself as another client. I'm not accessing anything I don't have a right to; after all, the server would happily respond if I use a different client.
> You are arguing that it should be ok for your software to lie about who/what it is.
I suppose, yes, I am. Not "who" though, we're not talking about authentication. Only what software, I the end user, am using to make the request.
I'll concede it's "fraud" if you define it as "trick." Guilty as charged: trickery.
- chrismmay 7y agoYou have me there on the "who" bit. I admit I have also been guilty on occasion of doing whatever is necessary as a client to get a server to respond. My point is that if we are going to try to fix it, we should address the problem, not mask it or throw up our hands and just set the UA to some silly constant. The information is helpful in troubleshooting issues and avoids people having to ask the inevitable "what browser/device are you using?" and also helps to allocate resources when testing. I honestly don't know what we would do as software developers and testers without somewhat accurate UA information. Maybe where we are right now is the best we can do. You can pretend to be Chrome and most of the major devices/clients will report their UA accurately, but if everyone did what you are claiming is your right to do, we would not have a viable ecosystem.