Re: [Lynx-dev] BUG Report

[Stefan Caunter]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:48 AM, David Woolley
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
>>
>> The server is checking the user-agent.  Changing it to Mozilla for
>> instance gets a page.  (These come up occasionally, and are not
>> a technical problem, but a lapse of ettiquete).
>>
>
> And the double fault (missing custom page) is just plain incompetence,
> although very common incompetence.
>
> Incidentally, people should use subjects like "Lynx Rejected 406 Not
> Acceptable; Mozilla Succeeds", rather than "Help" or "BUG Report", when
> submitting presumed bug reports to lists and forums.  They also shouldn't
> accuse software of bugs when they clearly know that the the fault lies in
> the web server.

It is also quite pointless to inspect the U-A header. Pushing out
logic to the edge can protect your web app. However, using header
inspection to identify bad bots is only useful if you can assess
sequential access by creating (and incrementing) a custom header that
allows you to take action at definable thresholds.

>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lynx-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lynx-dev
>