1. Set UserAgent string (general.useragent.override) to "Gecko/2.0 (Windows)" 2. Go to <http://www.telekom.at/site/service_und_hilfe/internet/e-mail-einstellungen/> or other FAQs on their site. Actual result: The whole page is there, just not the actual content (very smart!) Expected result: Actual content of page appears. As with UA string of Firefox.

Tested with Firefox trunk build from yesterday.

Does this happen with a non-contrived UA string? (For instance, with an unmodified Seamonkey, or with Camino from which the "like Firefox" portion of the UA string has been removed?) cl

Try it?

A) I don't read German. B) I don't know what the problem is. (Comment 0 is extremely unclear as to what one should expect to see.)

> A) I don't read German. Then you can't help anyway, sorry. Confirmed that they're looking for "Firefox". Works: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6 Breaks: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 With "broken", you see only: ------------------- E-Mail-Einstellungen Richten Sie Ihre Mailboxen und E-Mail-Adressen nach Wunsch ein! So empfangen und versenden Sie E-Mails! Drucken Weiterleiten ------------------- With "works", you see: ------------------- E-Mail-Einstellungen Richten Sie Ihre Mailboxen und E-Mail-Adressen nach Wunsch ein! So empfangen und versenden Sie E-Mails! Mailboxen und E-Mail-Adressen online verwalten Mailbox hinzufügen Mailbox Einstellungen: E-Mail-Adressen einrichten, Mailweiterleitung, Mailbox-Passwort Mailbox löschen E-Mail-Einstellungen im Kundencenter: So funktioniert's! E-Mails empfangen und versenden Mit dem Service E-Mail-Einstellungen im Telekom Austria Kundencenter können Sie bis zu fünf Mailboxen (= elektronische Postfächer) sowie bis zu jeweils fünf dazu gehörige E-Mail-Adressen (Alias-Adressen) einrichten und verwalten. jetzt einsteigen (Login) Unser Tipp: Besonders einfach geht's auch mit dem Controller. Seite 1/3 weiter » Drucken Weiterleiten -------------------

(In reply to comment #0) > 1. Set UserAgent string (general.useragent.override) to "Gecko/2.0 (Windows)" That's an unsupported UA string on the web, and one that doesn't comply with what UA strings should be, i.e. telling what brand the UA is, so that bug report is possibly bogus, unless the same effect can be shown with legal UA strings.

(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #0) > > 1. Set UserAgent string (general.useragent.override) to "Gecko/2.0 (Windows)" > > That's an unsupported UA string on the web, and one that doesn't comply with > what UA strings should be Oh, really? Where's the Official User-Agent String Specification, then? That UA string is pretty close to what a UA string *should* be, but comment 5 makes it pretty clear there's bogus sniffing going on here anyway. Without the string "Firefox" present, the site is serving up broken content.

> one that doesn't comply with what UA strings should be Wrong, it matches RFC 2616 exactly. More so than Gecko. Besides, that's not the problem here. This site looks specifically for "Firefox", and gives no content at all without that. That's double wrong.

(In reply to comment #8) > Besides, that's not the problem here. This site looks specifically for > "Firefox", and gives no content at all without that. That's double wrong. OK, that _is_ a bug, you're right. And it's true the site should _always_ show content, even when the UA would be illegal, but I still don't think your ridiculous UA should be anything to be taken into account in any serious communication.

Now that I know what to look for, I'm unable to reproduce comment 5 with the following UA string in a recent Camino nightly: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en; rv:1.9.2.10pre) Gecko/20100828 Camino/2.1a1pre The altered UA string in comment 5 isn't entirely legitimate (i.e., it isn't a UA string that occurs in a real-world browser). I'm not convinced the sniffing is as simple as "look for 'Firefox' and display content; else fail". I think there's something else going on here. Ben, I'll ask again: Can you replicate this bug using *legitimate* UA strings in any non-Firefox Gecko browsers? "Legitimate", for the purposes of this question, includes default UA strings, or default UA strings with *only* the "like foo" portion removed.

Demoting to "minor" until someone can show that this is actually a problem for normal end-users.

I think that's phrasing the question wrong. If I want to release a Gecko browser tomorrow, it should work. The Mozilla project is not just about Firefox, but also about providing technology for creating products. Their UA string parsing is wrong and unnecessary. The string I used in comment 5 must parse as Gecko and serve the same content as to Firefox, everything else is a site bug that's worth evanglizing.

fails with Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Minefield/3.6 works with Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2) Gecko/20100115 Minefield/3.6 Camino/3.0 So, they just look for known browsers. Bad sniffing. They should look for "Gecko/" - "geckoisgecko" is the tracking bug.

(In reply to comment #12) > The string I used in comment > 5 must parse as Gecko and serve the same content as to Firefox I don't dispute that... > everything else is a site bug that's worth evanglizing. but good luck convincing a site owner that their site needs to work with totally contrived UA strings that nobody actually uses. It's hard enough to convince them any browsers besides Firefox and IE even exist, much less that enough people use them to matter. If you want to try, go right ahead. I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I don't think "make your site work with an arbitrary UA string that contains 'Gecko/revnumber' in it somewhere" is a good use of anyone's time, either. You'd be better off providing real-world browsers that demonstrate failures, and using that to convince the site owner that *proper* sniffing (i.e., feature-sniffing rather than browser-sniffing, and rendering-engine sniffing rather than specific UA sniffing if it comes to that) will magically make this problem go away (and probably make it go away for arbitrary UA strings as well).

Also fails with (real UA strings fished from the web): Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux armv7l; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090322 Fennec/1.0b2pre Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070727 K-Meleon/1.1.2

> I don't think "make your site work with an arbitrary UA string that contains > 'Gecko/revnumber' in it somewhere" is a good use of anyone's time, either. I just gave a very good reason for why it is, in comment 12. Allowing other browsers (other than the current ones) is part of the mission of the Mozilla project.

You want this so bad, then take it. Good luck.

Chris, nobody asked you to do it. I don't have time myself either, I do other work, as developer. Leave it to somebody else, if you don't want it, but don't stop the bug, please. This is a valid bug, as formulated, and severe, as the whole content is gone, and affects several real products based on Gecko.

I'm sorry, you must not understand how TE works around here. Either you take it, or it won't get done. That's not a threat; that's a fact. I hate it, and I wish Mozilla actually put effort into it, but they don't, and you're the only one who cares about getting it fixed. I'd love to see it fixed myself, but I have better things to do than to spend time writing to a company in another country, whose language I don't speak, and who will never have me for a customer, to get them to fix a bug that only affects maybe a fraction of a percent of their actual customers. This is in no way "major", by the way. About the only way a TE bug is anything more than "normal" is if it affects a release version of Firefox or a top-100 Web site. This is neither.

> Either you take it, or it won't get done. The idea of filing a bug is not that the reporter fixes it, but that the TE team does it. If nobody wants to do it, fine. It's still a valid bug. > This is in no way "major", by the way. The whole content is missing. That's definitely not "minor". By your definition, all bugs underneath bug geckoisgecko are minor. Can we stop this fight and just let this poor bug exist, please?

(In reply to comment #20) > > Either you take it, or it won't get done. > > The idea of filing a bug is not that the reporter fixes it, but that the TE > team does it. AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TE team? You must be new here.

:-) Indeed I am. (I am a Mozilla developer since 10 years, but don't usually file TE bugs. I filed this one, because I ran into it and consider it severe.)

(In reply to comment #22) > Indeed I am. And I thought it was pretty clear that you didn't have any role with TE, not even as a watcher, just by seeing the naivety of your acting on UA strings and TE in general. :P

The linked URL now redirects to a different site (that never fully loads?). Closing as INVALID.