On Oct 1, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Surely packages.debian.org is not a good example of a site with
generally few Debian users.
The scenario seems more likely to me on small non-technical sites
that
only a few Debian unstable users are likely to visit.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:41:51AM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
This is most likely apocryphal. If there is any truth in the above link, it
has been blown way out of proportion. Nobody gets arrested for using lynx,
which is what that link says. There is little evidence to corroborate the
On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:41:51AM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
This is most likely apocryphal. If there is any truth in the above
link, it
has been blown way out of proportion. Nobody gets arrested for
using lynx,
which is what that link
Joey Hess wrote:
Surely packages.debian.org is not a good example of a site with
generally few Debian users.
The scenario seems more likely to me on small non-technical sites that
only a few Debian unstable users are likely to visit. For special fun,
try browsing from an unusual
Sam Leon wrote:
My only complaint is that alot of website traffic analyzer programs pick
up the debian iceweasel browser as unknown browser and unknown
operating system
If they'd do their job right they'd look for the gecko engine and it's
version and not on the name of the browser.
Compare
My only complaint is that alot of website traffic analyzer programs pick
up the debian iceweasel browser as unknown browser and unknown
operating system
Sam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Leon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My only complaint is that alot of website traffic analyzer programs
pick up the debian iceweasel browser as unknown browser and
unknown operating system
That's a bug in those web sites, of course. They shouldn't even be
trying to sniff User-Agent to
Sorry for the late reply but currently I am porting a new architecture
and have not very much time...
Am 2007-09-21 18:03:05, schrieb Peter Eckersley:
Consider for a moment a typical User-Agent string sent by a Debian web
browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6)
Am 2007-09-22 11:16:55, schrieb Peter Eckersley:
But maybe you use open wifi networks, and other Debian users also use
those networks. Maybe there are other Debian users behind your NAT.
Maybe your friends come over sometimes and they also use Debian. In
those cases, standardising the
Peter Eckersley wrote:
Consider for a moment a typical User-Agent string sent by a Debian web
browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070802
Iceape/1.1.4 (Debian-1.1.4-1)
Unfortunately, the fact that this information identifies a specific
package and
On Sep 22, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Peter Eckersley wrote:
On Sep 22, Marco D'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 22, Peter Eckersley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track
Debian users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking
cookies
On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11150 March 1977, Peter Eckersley wrote:
This is highly debateable. There may be tens or thousands of
users of
the same package visiting a web site.
I've seen reports from very large sites indicating that User-Agent
strings are almost as
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:39:25PM -0700, Peter Eckersley wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:36:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I would strongly expect that any user sufficiently concerned about
these issues to take active steps like those would be willing to use
I think this misunderstands
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11150 March 1977, Peter Eckersley wrote:
I've seen reports from very large sites indicating that
User-Agent
strings are almost as useful as cookies for tracking their
users.
I cant believe this. Looking at the stats
Hi,
I think one technical solution which seems o be good to one person may
not be good one for others.
You must think realistic solution which do not affect others in any
negative way and possibly give more benefits than just solving your own
corner case problem.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Peter Eckersley wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track Debian
users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking cookies or
limiting them to a single session and is changing IP address regularly.
I would
Yes and no. Although IP addresses are a better tracking mechanism than
User-Agent strings, each of them makes the other more effective. If you
always browse from one IP, and all the other people at that IP use
Windows, then this doesn't help you.
But maybe you use open wifi networks, and
On Sep 22, Marco D'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 22, Peter Eckersley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track
Debian users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking
cookies or limiting them to a single session and is
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:36:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track
Debian users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking
cookies or limiting them to a single session and is changing IP
address regularly.
I would
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:39:25PM -0700, Peter Eckersley wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 11:36:41 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track
Debian users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking
cookies or limiting them to a
Consider for a moment a typical User-Agent string sent by a Debian web browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070802 Iceape/1.1.4
(Debian-1.1.4-1)
I agree that it is a bit too verbose and it might even be a security
problem, but reaching consensus on what
On 11150 March 1977, Peter Eckersley wrote:
This is highly debateable. There may be tens or thousands of users of
the same package visiting a web site.
I've seen reports from very large sites indicating that User-Agent
strings are almost as useful as cookies for tracking their users.
I cant
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11150 March 1977, Peter Eckersley wrote:
I've seen reports from very large sites indicating that User-Agent
strings are almost as useful as cookies for tracking their users.
I cant believe this. Looking at the stats from packages.debian.org - U-A
is the worst
Consider for a moment a typical User-Agent string sent by a Debian web browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070802 Iceape/1.1.4
(Debian-1.1.4-1)
Unfortunately, the fact that this information identifies a specific
package and version of that package means that
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 06:03:05PM -0700, Peter Eckersley wrote:
What do people think of picking a single User-Agent string for all
versions of all of Debian's Gecko-based browsers?
It would be sort of pointless unless we could find a way to all browse
from the same IP address.
Regards,
On Sep 22, Peter Eckersley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means, in practice, that many sites will be able to track Debian
users by their User-Agent, even if (say) the user is blocking cookies or
limiting them to a single session and is changing IP address regularly.
This is highly debateable.
26 matches
Mail list logo
