Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.220.37

Forum Moderators: Ocean10000 & incrediBILL

Message Too Old, No Replies

Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal WebWasher 3.4

     
11:26 pm on Jul 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 5, 2005
posts:2038
votes: 1


UA: Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal WebWasher 3.4
HOST: c-69-138-198-xyz.hsd1.md.comcast.net
(xyz = obfuscated)

LOG:

c-69-138-198-xyz.hsd1.md.comcast.net - - [01/Jul/2006:18:34:49 -0700]
"GET /dir1/file1.html HTTP/1.0" 403 803 "http://www.example.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1234&forum=567"
"Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal WebWasher 3.4"

c-69-138-198-xyz.hsd1.md.comcast.net - - [01/Jul/2006:18:34:49 -0700]
"GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.0" 403 803 "http://www.example.com/dir1/file1.html"
"Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal WebWasher 3.4"

c-69-138-198-xyz.hsd1.md.comcast.net - - [01/Jul/2006:18:35:30 -0700]
"GET /dir1/file1.html HTTP/1.0" 403 803 "-"
"Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal WebWasher 3.4"

NOTES:

No robots.txt, per usual with WebWasher, a bad egg for ages and ages.

This is the first time I've seen Middle Eastern descriptors in its name, tho'. Could be 'personalized' or someone goofed up or is saying -- something?

(Yet another .comcast.net troublemaker.)

5:21 am on July 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14621
votes: 85


I've seen a few WebWashers, both UAs and Proxy Servers...

217.20.113.110 "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95) WebWasher 3.3"

194.115.171.70 Proxy Server -> (1.0 DESYP019, 1.1 webwasher (Webwasher 5.2.0.1858))

206.169.110.66 "virus_detector virus_harvester@securecomputing.com" via Proxy Server *1.1 webwasher (Webwasher 5.3.0.2198))

89.51.12.27 gdddzdserwrtsetsetge WebWasher 3.3

71.192.26.130 Opera/8.52 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) WebWasher 3.4

The UA doesn't appear to be a bot, it's a security filtering technology:
[cyberguard.com...]

Did a real good job too as it filtered itself right off my website.

1:44 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 10, 2005
posts:105
votes: 0


Pfui, Al-Kahal is Arabic for alcohol (imagine that).
My daughter, who learned a little Arabic while in the Army, didn't have a clue on the rest of it though.
2:27 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member digitalghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 23, 2002
posts:3687
votes: 0


>>Hadrinka Tumaj Al-Kahal

Had Drinka Too Much Alcohol. I'd ban that eh? And the Arabic for alcohol is 'al-koh'l'. From the powdered metal, kohl, or black antimony.

[edited by: digitalghost at 2:38 am (utc) on July 7, 2006]

2:34 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jdmorgan is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 31, 2002
posts:25430
votes: 0


While most of us generally agree that every webmaster should do as he/she sees fit with their sites, I for one try not to block web filters -- I don't want them to ban *me* and lose the opportunity to market to surfers behind corporate proxies/caches/filters at work. Just something to consider... YMMV

Great translation, D.G.!

Jim

3:16 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 10, 2005
posts:105
votes: 0


Thanks digitalghost, I figured out what it was right after I posted and felt like an idiot.
3:17 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 5, 2005
posts:2038
votes: 1


Thanks for the translations, all! When I checked out the words pre-posting, I missed the fun route and went literal -- Tumaj [traveljournals.net] is in Iran, and a kahal [en.wikipedia.org] is a Jewish community. With those two words in such close proximity, I figured the UA wasn't saying something better-suited for, oh, Aljazeera...

"Had Drinka Too Much Alcohol" -- Very clever. Thanks again!

Best,
Paige Turner [ethanwiner.com]

: )

3:26 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member digitalghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 23, 2002
posts:3687
votes: 0


Don't feel like an idiot. One of the biggest check kiters of all time signed checks, 'I.M. Slicke' and 'U.R. Stucke'. It's only after you say it aloud that the message become apparent.

Anyone for the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe? (courtesy of Johnny Carson)

6:18 am on July 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14621
votes: 85


I for one try not to block web filters -- I don't want them to ban *me* and lose the opportunity to market to surfers behind corporate proxies/caches/filters at work.

There's a big difference between a web filter and a proxy server that replaces the UA.

If they can't pass the UA properly so that I can give the visitor a page that will render properly, I'd rather block them than leave a bad taste in their mouth with a page that doesn't know how to adapt to the quirks of a particular browser.

FWIW, I don't see more than a handful of requests from such web filtering proxies, and if enough users of these proxies complain they will FIX them and we'll never know the UA of the proxy or it will be in the PROXY VIA field instead of the USER AGENT field like it's supposed to be.

I don't bend over backwards for buggy software, not my problem.

Besides, they probably filter out my cookies and don't credit me for sales either, blah.

Just my $0.02

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members