> It seems a bit strange that the offending lines in the file imply a
> REAL commercial browser (IE5, Netscape) was being used,
If you don't say you're Mozilla, many "optimized" (*ahem*) sites will refuse
to give you normal output -- an example would be espn.com, if I recall
correctly.
The ostensible reason for this is that graphics-rich content is poorly
indexible, so these sites want to provide good search engine fodder for
bots. Usually it's a mistake.
> rather than a
> hacker's special.
Needn't be a hacker's special. It could just be a spider.
> I don't recall there being any settings in commercial
> browsers to set a value for the referrer. How would someone set a
> specific referrer value in a commercial browser?
Well, commercial browsers want to appear to be conquering the market, so they
don't give ready access to the browser line. With Gecko, of course, you just
compile in whatever you want, and Javascript on some browsers may expose the
browser tag to programmatic control. I don't know. Never tried.
> Incidentally, most entries in the log have the 'spurious' referrer only
> for the *first* page request - subsequent requests (such as image files
> which appear on the first page)
Then it may be some local index or search engine or something. I wouldn't
spend too much time on it.
> I did find one user who consistently provided an incorrect referrer for
> ALL requests to my site. Needless to say this increased its ranking in
> the referrers report considerably!
Indeed.
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
