guideline for name-based web hosting justification

Was there no "Unknown" browsers?  My logging and analysis tools have a
very high percentage that come back as "Unknown," which I'm inclined to
beleive are older browsers.

Mury

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, PSchroebel wrote:

> Tracking browsers....
> Yes we did and we were amazed with the results.
> In fact we still dont believe them....
> 
> Where is Netscape?...this is a sampling too!!
> 
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 5.0; Windows 98;
> DigExt)  16605 (26.2%)  176388k (34.0%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)  4288
> (6.8%)  8060k (1.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 5.0; Windows 95;
> DigExt)  3675 (5.8%)  38714k (7.5%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt)  3477
> (5.5%)  11312k (2.2%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)  2500
> (3.9%)  13682k (2.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; AOL 5.0; Windows 98)
> 2051 (3.2%)  21238k (4.1%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 4.0; Windows 98;
> DigExt)  1906 (3.0%)  19527k (3.8%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; MSN 2.5; AOL 5.0; Windows
> 98; DigExt)  1282 (2.0%)  13459k (2.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)  1146 (1.8%)
> 6325k (1.2%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)  1009 (1.6%)
> 5864k (1.1%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; AOL 5.0; Windows 98)  870
> (1.4%)  9029k (1.7%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)  784
> (1.2%)  4484k (0.9%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; AOL 4.0; Windows 98)
> 778 (1.2%)  7224k (1.4%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)  766 (1.2%)
> 1076k (0.2%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 5.0; Windows 98;
> Compaq; DigExt)  630 (1.0%)  8262k (1.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows 98)  618 (1.0%)
> 3459k (0.7%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98)  586 (0.9%)
> 3224k (0.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)  548 (0.9%)
> 2893k (0.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT)  534 (0.8%)
> 3060k (0.6%)
> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; AOL 4.0; Windows 95)
> 486 (0.8%)  5205k (1.0%)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Peter Schroebel
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mury" <mury at goldengate.net>
> To: "Jon Rust" <hostmaster at vcnet.com>
> Cc: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>; "Matt Bailey"
> <mbailey at journey.net>; <arin-discuss at arin.net>;
> <ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: guideline for name-based web hosting
> justification
> 
> 
> 
> > You're bending the truth here, quite a bit actually. The
> HTTP 1.0 proto
> > may not support the Host: header, but browsers that are
> using HTTP 1.0
> > may very well support he Host: header. Oh, i don't know, a
> smallish
> > browser called Netscape, v 2.0 or better, comes to mind.
> Grepping
> > through my access log for today I see over 65,000 1.0
> requests. 98% of
> > those are to name-based virtual hosts (which is almost all
> i run
> > anymore), and they all worked.
> >
> > jon
> 
> 
> Good to know.  Finally someone takes the time to correct me
> and not just
> call me a whiner.
> 
> So, does anyone know a reliable source that keeps track of
> stats on
> browsers?  If it isn't 50% that won't get to the web site,
> is it
> 10%? 5%? .0001%?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mury
> GoldenGate Internet Services
> 
>