From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RMj7d-0003HA-2w for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:29:33 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RMj7c-0006tp-8u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:29:33 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0804D9007D; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:29:26 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:29:15 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <1320268981.72296.YahooMailNeo@web121003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1320507589.87534.YahooMailNeo@web121019.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111051229.16790.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1RMj7c-0006tp-8u Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lock protocol version numbers X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 16:29:33 -0000 On Saturday, November 05, 2011 12:17:58 PM Christian Decker wrote: > Sorry for shooting this approach down, but I'm against it. User-agent > strings are an extremely bad idea as it would lead developers to start > making communication choices depending on the client type. This can be necessary in some cases. What happens when some popular client is found with a subtle bug, and cannot otherwise be differentiated from other similar-functionality clients? I have found User-Agent very valuable when dealing with the wide variety of miner bugs when I have enabled new functionality/behaviour on Eligius.