Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:18:17 -0400
On Wednesday 18 October 2000 19:25, you wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:25:24PM -0400, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> > BTW, Supports blah; is useless!!! I have yet to see any server that
> > picks on that stuff!! It is not part of any HTTP spec!! It is a nice
> > idea and Alex was dreaming when he put that stuff there. He did it
> > because he did not want to make the UserAgent stuff configurable...
> Pfft. This from the guy who abuses the User-Agent (maybe crack too eh?)
> for purposes that are expressly prohibited by the HTTP spec. Speaking of
> dreaming... Anyways, while I think that a configurable user-agent string
> is arguably a good idea, I *still* think that the default string should be
> honest. In fact it was on my list of things to make time to do
> (configurable useragentstring).
Whatever. I won't argue about this with you anymore (and won't insult you either)...
> Proof that stupid assumptions make stupid people?
Making assumption from your prior stands (flames) on this issue makes me stupid ?
At worst I am simply wrong, but hey you walk around with a flame thrower so this
does not surprise me coming from you...
> Grr. However, the code you speak of was merely for debugging
> purposes, not for use by the server.
Okay now. This is the single most straight answer you gave me so far without
inflaming the situation. If you left it at that, I would have bowed down and
> Oops, again have I mentioned NO sever (regardless of whether or not they
> do) is supposed to act on ANYTHING sent by the useragent string. Perhaps
> it's time for you to sit down and READ the HTTP draft.
You know damn well that there are many many servers out there that blatantly ignore
specifications. Do not believe me, look at how many of them return the same header
for a HEAD and GET request!! Should we then put the user at a disadvantage of not
being able to access a sites just because the stupid server does what it is not supposed
who is eternally damned in Alex's book for nothing!!