[Greasemonkey] Question: what would happen if GreasemonkeysenttheID of every applicable user script with each request?

[Aaron Boodman]

> Another data point in this discussion: from my foray into the
> syndication world, I know that some system administrators will simply
> ban any user agent that they don't recognize.  I run my own web
> server, and I have a report that runs every day that lists any
> User-Agent that it hasn't seen before.  The addition of a
> "Greasemonkey" label onto the standard User-Agent, along with a long
> list of unknown script names, will raise alarm bells with system
> administrators who are generally (a) extremely busy, (b) paranoid
> about the health of their servers, and (c) lazy about researching.

I think this might happen if we did this today. If the percentage of
users with GM or other user scripting software was somewhat higher, I
don't think that they would be able to. You would reach a balancing
point where a chunk of the population is saying "look, this is how we
want to view your site. take it or leave it." and the sysadmin must
either decide "leave it" and explain to his boss why the number just
dropped 5% or take it and keep and eye out for abusive behavior just
like he presumably is now.

> On the contrary, in the face
> of the Forrester report (which I finally read and which is shockingly
> negative about GM) and inevitable further negative press, it would be
> fantastic to be able to demonstrate that the GM community is listening and
> proactively coming up with ways to work with site operators who are
> concerned about these issues.

That's not what the Forrester report was negative about. They were
against the whole idea of user scripting, particularly from the IT
department's maintainability and security standpoints.

-- 
Aaron