Are these legit UA's?

Trying to ban site suckers - these UAs might be real though

[Constantin]

It appears that the hunt is on for UAs that won't be banned by htaccess files by default. Today, I had a look at WebCopier, SuckItDown, and WebDumper.

All three triggered my honeypot and shut themselves out. Furthermore, WebCopier was stopped cold to start with. However, I wonder if the two following UAs are legit or if I can ban them too:

WebDumper: Mozilla/3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC),
SuckItDown: Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; OmniWeb/4.0.5; Mac_PowerPC),

[dcrombie]

I think you can safely ban anything that contains 'Suck' ;)

[Constantin]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. The UAs are listed after the colon letter. In other words, the UA sent by Webdumper is "Mozilla/3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)". The question is, are there legitimate browsers that use thes UAs?

[panic]

It doesn't look like these user agents are illegitimate. However, I think your best bet would be to grab all the lines with that User Agent, and see exactly what the users are doing.

[pendanticist]

You might try looking around these:

[webmasterworld.com...] - bad-bot script: follow-up?

[webmasterworld.com...] - WebmasterWorld forum11 Updated and Collated Bot List.

and

[webmasterworld.com...] - Cloaking Device Made for Spammers

(Pay little attention to my post to this thread as it's data is dated and may no longer have the relevance it did at the time of the post.)

Oh. Don't forget [webmasterworld.com...] - A Close to perfect .htaccess ban list.

There are two 'continuances' of that thread and all are right where you might want to be reading.

By the time you get done reading these threads, you'll be fairly well empowered. :)

Pendanticist.