Note on "Barring Netscape"

The Microsoft Internet Explorer sends the user-agent "Mozilla 1.22 (compatible"
to hte server, which triggers an incorrect response from, e.g., www.c2.org.
This little fraud has the potential to make you look silly if left unexplained.

If you get the string "compatible;" (or Compatible;?), you should instead pop
up Netscapisms that show that Microsoft is lying. Or maybe Billisms.
<font face="Symbol">, which affects only MSIE, might be appropriate.

-rich

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Dec 6, 11:57am, Richard Charles Graves wrote:
> The Microsoft Internet Explorer sends the user-agent "Mozilla 1.22
(compatible"
> to hte server, which triggers an incorrect response from, e.g., www.c2.org.
> This little fraud has the potential to make you look silly if left
unexplained.

this *is* fraud, in a way. Microsoft is shipping a product which in a
certain exchange claims to be a product of another company. Microsoft's
software is being treated better around the net because it is recognised
as Netscape, which it isn't.

It would be somewhat like me walking through the short line at Heathrow
as a EU citizen even though I'm actually a Canadian citizen.

If Microsoft had used "MSIE 1.0 (...)", then they would have to gain
"market share" in convincing the web that their browser is worth writing
content for. As a side note, there are suggestions that httpds should be
a little more intelligent about HTML, recognising which clients can handle
which versions of html [so that they would ship 1.0 to those which can
handle 1.0, 2.0 to those which think they can handle 2.0, and perhaps we
have a 2.0-netscape-ENHANCED-ha-ha-ha]. If this were to be encouraged by
both httpd creators and client creators, with both sides being honest,
then uSoft would not need to claim to be shipping Netscape. They could
just say html-2.0-microsoft-ENHANCED-ow-my-sides [e.g.] and servers could
check the 2.0 and pay attention to the rest if they wished. [On a side
note, if all governments decided to close up shop tomorrow, many people
on this list would be happy. Which is more likely?]

http, from my meagre understanding, is supposed to be a negotiation (among
other things) with both sides agreeing on what the client can handle and
what the server can offer. Perhaps Microsoft could be encouraged to be
honest about what they are shipping. (I don't doubt that other clients
may also lie about who they are.)

richard

ps - Life might be a lot easier for everyone on the web if Netscape forced
     uSoft software to be honest about what it is.

ObBarelyCrypto: Do our *browsers* now have to start authenticating themselves?

- --
Richard Martin                           I DON'T SPEAK FOR ALIAS|WAVEFRONT
Alias|Wavefront - Toronto Office [Co-op Software Developer, Games Team]
rmartin@aw.sgi.com/g4frodo@cdf.toronto.edu      http://www.io.org/~samwise
Trinity College UofT ChemPhysCompSci 9T7+PEY=9T8 Shad Valley Waterloo 1992

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMMYBVB1gtCYLvIJ1AQEi3gP+IqWbKqk6MTKviGMRw5ZKde+9BQ/iQOIA
jrrDXEZQIdwHBeeATOzqYFVzVxi5bQFgLPCt/kNTsyARwQbLGQ54HuR57qPX4EOm
d0d2A7oL4qsFwGvmETP4HlBQy10e5vKqM/7pLZl0s9cE/a3kWeZq+XCS4oBKHDtF
alTjxYClsAg=
=hOc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Richard Martin" <rmartin@aw.sgi.com> writes:
> On Dec 6, 11:57am, Richard Charles Graves wrote:
> > The Microsoft Internet Explorer sends the user-agent "Mozilla 1.22
> (compatible"
> > to hte server, which triggers an incorrect response from, e.g., www.c2.org.
> > This little fraud has the potential to make you look silly if left
> unexplained.
>
> this *is* fraud, in a way. Microsoft is shipping a product which in a
> certain exchange claims to be a product of another company. Microsoft's
> software is being treated better around the net because it is recognised
> as Netscape, which it isn't.

This reminds me of how many many years ago, when IBM and Microsoft were
good friends, earlier version of MS Windows(?) video drivers were
hard-coded not to recognize a video card as being VGA-compatible (or
even EGA-?) unless its ROM had the 3 letters "IBM" at offset 0x1e. The
genuine vanilla IBM card had the words "COPYRIGHT IBM" at that address.
Various clone makers had to put "IBM" at that location to make their
cards work with Windows(?). E.g., I have a Trident VGA card whose ROM
says "RESERVED FOR IBM COMPATIBILITY" positioned so that "IBM" is
exactly at 0x1E. Some other cards just say "IBM" there with no
explanation in adjascent memory.

I think that if some servers refuse to talk to clients unless they see
"Mozilla", then I can't blame Microsoft for impersonating Netscape.

I think the whole protocol is way stupid. Instead of asking the client
for its name, and then looking up in some database what a client with
that name is capable of, a server should ask the client only about the
capabilities that the server is planning to use.

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps