undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSpare_account10y ago0 comments

Unless you were being tongue-in-cheek, you've completely sidestepped the intent of my comment and continued with the linguistic silliness.

Obtaining paywall-protected content by faking your user agent to purport yourself to be a Google Crawler is quite clearly fraudulent. This isn't a point for debate.

PS. To play along with the linguistic theme, can you provide a source for the definition of a malformed request? My original intent when using the word malformed was not to invoke it's technical definition but rather it's dictionary definition. But, having said that, I just had a 30 second Google hunt and couldn't find anything to corroborate your position.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

jsprogrammer10y ago· 1 in thread

So...if I only entitle Mozilla based agents to view my content and Chrome, IE, and Safari users still get access by claiming to be a Mozilla agent, those users have committed a felony?

This line of argumentation is beyond ridiculous.

Spare_accountOP10y ago

Are your Mozilla users paying for access? Are the Chrome users with the fake agent strings obtaining paid-for content for free? The use of forged agent strings isn't the offence.

oldmanjay10y ago

I wasn't playing a linguistic game. You mentioned standards and malformed requests, and I pointed out that you misused those terms. I am not bothering to track down definitions for you to play, as you say, linguistic games. You are free to find something that proves my position wrong, as I used the RFC to cite my position as correct.

If you meant to put forth that faking a user agent is a technique to exceed authorization, that's fine, and I'm glad to have helped you clarify it. Just be clear, it's not what you said with your detour into malformed requests.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse