Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

J2ME on Vodafone failling to download

Expand Messages
  • Jose Alberto Fernandez
    Hi guys, This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday (and may be
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi guys,

      This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
      the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
      (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the JAD
      file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.

      This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
      sudden they are transcoding
      content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".

      Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
      MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
      www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently Novarra
      is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
      devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to control
      how the handset delivers its notifications.

      All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
      noticing similar stuff?
    • andrevdh2001
      We ve been having something similar happening ... still under investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an error invalid application when
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        We've been having something similar happening ... still under
        investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
        error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...

        If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
        interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...

        --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
        <jose@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi guys,
        >
        > This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
        > the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
        > (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the
        JAD
        > file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
        >
        > This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
        > sudden they are transcoding
        > content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
        >
        > Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
        > MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
        > www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently Novarra
        > is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
        > devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to control
        > how the handset delivers its notifications.
        >
        > All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
        > noticing similar stuff?
        >
      • Luca Passani
        I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I got back: We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so maybe something got
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I got back:

          "We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so maybe
          something got messed up as we know that J2ME application downloads worked in
          the past.
          I will report this to engineering and ask them to investigate."

          What is ACA? does anyone know?

          Luca

          andrevdh2001 wrote:
          > We've been having something similar happening ... still under
          > investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
          > error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...
          >
          > If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
          > interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...
          >
          > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
          > <jose@...> wrote:
          >
          >> Hi guys,
          >>
          >> This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
          >> the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
          >> (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the
          >>
          > JAD
          >
          >> file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
          >>
          >> This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
          >> sudden they are transcoding
          >> content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
          >>
          >> Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
          >> MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
          >> www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently Novarra
          >> is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
          >> devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to control
          >> how the handset delivers its notifications.
          >>
          >> All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
          >> noticing similar stuff?
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
          > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/ before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Jose Alberto Fernandez
          Maybe he meant CACA :) ... worked in ... before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Maybe he meant CACA :)

            --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I
            got back:
            >
            > "We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so maybe
            > something got messed up as we know that J2ME application downloads
            worked in
            > the past.
            > I will report this to engineering and ask them to investigate."
            >
            > What is ACA? does anyone know?
            >
            > Luca
            >
            > andrevdh2001 wrote:
            > > We've been having something similar happening ... still under
            > > investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
            > > error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...
            > >
            > > If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
            > > interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...
            > >
            > > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
            > > <jose@> wrote:
            > >
            > >> Hi guys,
            > >>
            > >> This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
            > >> the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
            > >> (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the
            > >>
            > > JAD
            > >
            > >> file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
            > >>
            > >> This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
            > >> sudden they are transcoding
            > >> content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
            > >>
            > >> Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
            > >> MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
            > >> www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently Novarra
            > >> is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
            > >> devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to control
            > >> how the handset delivers its notifications.
            > >>
            > >> All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
            > >> noticing similar stuff?
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
            > > Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
            before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Eric Donovan
            It s been happening since at least 16 June. there s a question about it on this thread http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=282914 Don t Vodafone
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              It's been happening since at least 16 June.

              there's a question about it on this thread
              http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=282914

              Don't Vodafone have a staging server? you'd think they'd take more
              care over a live network that serves millions of customers

              eric
            • Jose Alberto Fernandez
              I think it does not affected white-listed domains. I only noticed when using our testing environments which are not white-listed. But you are right, I have
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I think it does not affected white-listed domains. I only noticed when
                using our testing environments which are not white-listed.

                But you are right, I have waisted so much time trying to fix something
                it was not broken on my side. Grrrrrr

                --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Donovan" <eric@...> wrote:
                >
                > It's been happening since at least 16 June.
                >
                > there's a question about it on this thread
                > http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=282914
                >
                > Don't Vodafone have a staging server? you'd think they'd take more
                > care over a live network that serves millions of customers
                >
                > eric
                >
              • Luca Passani
                Any developments? has the problem been fixed. Luca
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 3, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Any developments? has the problem been fixed.

                  Luca

                  Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
                  > Maybe he meant CACA :)
                  >
                  > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >> I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I
                  >>
                  > got back:
                  >
                  >> "We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so maybe
                  >> something got messed up as we know that J2ME application downloads
                  >>
                  > worked in
                  >
                  >> the past.
                  >> I will report this to engineering and ask them to investigate."
                  >>
                  >> What is ACA? does anyone know?
                  >>
                  >> Luca
                  >>
                  >> andrevdh2001 wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> We've been having something similar happening ... still under
                  >>> investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
                  >>> error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...
                  >>>
                  >>> If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
                  >>> interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...
                  >>>
                  >>> --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
                  >>> <jose@> wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> Hi guys,
                  >>>>
                  >>>> This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
                  >>>> the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
                  >>>> (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>> JAD
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>> file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
                  >>>>
                  >>>> This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
                  >>>> sudden they are transcoding
                  >>>> content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
                  >>>>
                  >>>> Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
                  >>>> MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
                  >>>> www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently Novarra
                  >>>> is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
                  >>>> devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to control
                  >>>> how the handset delivers its notifications.
                  >>>>
                  >>>> All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
                  >>>> noticing similar stuff?
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>>
                  >>>
                • andrevdh2001
                  I hate to admit it but our problem was probably caused on our side ... seems to be working fine now after I made some adjustments to our provisioning server...
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 3, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I hate to admit it but our problem was probably caused on our side ...
                    seems to be working fine now after I made some adjustments to our
                    provisioning server...

                    just a side note that our error was related to the signatures in signed
                    java apps ... and also that our domain is on the Novarra whitelist ...
                    so was probably not affected at all if there was/is a problem with jad
                    files being transformed

                    --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Any developments? has the problem been fixed.
                    >
                    > Luca
                    >
                  • Jose Alberto Fernandez
                    Luca, As we are white-listed this was only occurring in some of our testing environments. Anyway by the time you mentioned the new release of VF-UK I had
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Luca,

                      As we are white-listed this was only occurring in some of our testing
                      environments. Anyway by the time you mentioned the new release of
                      VF-UK I had already changed our provisioning to be more aggressive on
                      telling the gateway to leave things alone.

                      That made things work and I had not looked back since. :)

                      Jose Alberto

                      --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Any developments? has the problem been fixed.
                      >
                      > Luca
                      >
                      > Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
                      > > Maybe he meant CACA :)
                      > >
                      > > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >> I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I
                      > >>
                      > > got back:
                      > >
                      > >> "We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so maybe
                      > >> something got messed up as we know that J2ME application downloads
                      > >>
                      > > worked in
                      > >
                      > >> the past.
                      > >> I will report this to engineering and ask them to investigate."
                      > >>
                      > >> What is ACA? does anyone know?
                      > >>
                      > >> Luca
                      > >>
                      > >> andrevdh2001 wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>> We've been having something similar happening ... still under
                      > >>> investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
                      > >>> error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...
                      > >>>
                      > >>> If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
                      > >>> interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...
                      > >>>
                      > >>> --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
                      > >>> <jose@> wrote:
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>> Hi guys,
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>> This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to determine
                      > >>>> the correct device and all that, but we started noticing yesterday
                      > >>>> (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading the
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>> JAD
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>> file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>> This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
                      > >>>> sudden they are transcoding
                      > >>>> content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>> Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
                      > >>>> MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
                      > >>>> www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently
                      Novarra
                      > >>>> is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
                      > >>>> devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to
                      control
                      > >>>> how the handset delivers its notifications.
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>> All this seem to have started happening quite recently. Anyone else
                      > >>>> noticing similar stuff?
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>
                      >
                    • Jason Delport
                      Hi, Just a word of warning about using header directives like Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading Java ME applications on many
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 3, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi,

                        Just a word of warning about using header directives like
                        Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading Java
                        ME applications on many global network operators (Swisscom being an
                        example). Through weeks of trial and error testing with clients the
                        only 100% certainty we found was to use no headers at all. Eventually
                        we just bought a .mobi domain and always use the correct mime type and
                        file extension for JADs and JARs.

                        Cheers,

                        J

                        --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
                        <jose@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Luca,
                        >
                        > As we are white-listed this was only occurring in some of our testing
                        > environments. Anyway by the time you mentioned the new release of
                        > VF-UK I had already changed our provisioning to be more aggressive on
                        > telling the gateway to leave things alone.
                        >
                        > That made things work and I had not looked back since. :)
                        >
                        > Jose Alberto
                        >
                        > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Any developments? has the problem been fixed.
                        > >
                        > > Luca
                        > >
                        > > Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
                        > > > Maybe he meant CACA :)
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@>
                        wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >> I activated some secret channels I have to Novarra Here is what I
                        > > >>
                        > > > got back:
                        > > >
                        > > >> "We have recently upgraded the VF-UK ACAs and proxy servers, so
                        maybe
                        > > >> something got messed up as we know that J2ME application downloads
                        > > >>
                        > > > worked in
                        > > >
                        > > >> the past.
                        > > >> I will report this to engineering and ask them to investigate."
                        > > >>
                        > > >> What is ACA? does anyone know?
                        > > >>
                        > > >> Luca
                        > > >>
                        > > >> andrevdh2001 wrote:
                        > > >>
                        > > >>> We've been having something similar happening ... still under
                        > > >>> investigation ... where vodafone devices are getting an
                        > > >>> error "invalid application" when downloading signed java apps ...
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>> If they are transcoding the jad file they will defintely be
                        > > >>> interfering with the signatures and breaking them ...
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>> --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jose Alberto Fernandez"
                        > > >>> <jose@> wrote:
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>>> Hi guys,
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>> This is a new issue with VodafoneUK. We already manage to
                        determine
                        > > >>>> the correct device and all that, but we started noticing
                        yesterday
                        > > >>>> (and may be there from a few days back) that when downloading
                        the
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>> JAD
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>>
                        > > >>>> file, Novarra's gateway is messing around with the file.
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>> This has been working correctly for months now and now out of the
                        > > >>>> sudden they are transcoding
                        > > >>>> content-type="text/vnd.sun.j2me.app-descriptor".
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>> Also, we are noticing that on Vodafone the POST content on the
                        > > >>>> MIDlet-Install-Notify and MIDlet-Delete-Notify URLs are coming as
                        > > >>>> www-urlencoded-form which violates the J2ME spec. Apparently
                        > Novarra
                        > > >>>> is messing with the way POST content is delivered from the client
                        > > >>>> devices to the servers. Of course, there is no way for us to
                        > control
                        > > >>>> how the handset delivers its notifications.
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>> All this seem to have started happening quite recently.
                        Anyone else
                        > > >>>> noticing similar stuff?
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>>
                        > > >>>
                        > >
                        >
                      • Sylvain Wallez
                        ... Out of curiosity, what does a .mobi domain change to the picture? Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 5, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jason Delport wrote:
                          > Hi,
                          >
                          > Just a word of warning about using header directives like
                          > Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading Java
                          > ME applications on many global network operators (Swisscom being an
                          > example). Through weeks of trial and error testing with clients the
                          > only 100% certainty we found was to use no headers at all. Eventually
                          > we just bought a .mobi domain and always use the correct mime type and
                          > file extension for JADs and JARs.
                          >

                          Out of curiosity, what does a .mobi domain change to the picture?

                          Sylvain

                          --
                          Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
                        • Luca Passani
                          ... because Novarra won t try to transcode content from a .mobi domain. Luca
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 6, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sylvain Wallez wrote:
                            > Jason Delport wrote:
                            >
                            >> Hi,
                            >>
                            >> Just a word of warning about using header directives like
                            >> Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading Java
                            >> ME applications on many global network operators (Swisscom being an
                            >> example). Through weeks of trial and error testing with clients the
                            >> only 100% certainty we found was to use no headers at all. Eventually
                            >> we just bought a .mobi domain and always use the correct mime type and
                            >> file extension for JADs and JARs.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            > Out of curiosity, what does a .mobi domain change to the picture?
                            >
                            because Novarra won't try to transcode content from a .mobi domain.

                            Luca
                          • Sylvain Wallez
                            ... Uh, weird. Thanks for the info. Sylvain -- Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 6, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Luca Passani wrote:
                              > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
                              >
                              >> Jason Delport wrote:
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>> Hi,
                              >>>
                              >>> Just a word of warning about using header directives like
                              >>> Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading Java
                              >>> ME applications on many global network operators (Swisscom being an
                              >>> example). Through weeks of trial and error testing with clients the
                              >>> only 100% certainty we found was to use no headers at all. Eventually
                              >>> we just bought a .mobi domain and always use the correct mime type and
                              >>> file extension for JADs and JARs.
                              >>>
                              >> Out of curiosity, what does a .mobi domain change to the picture?
                              >>
                              >
                              > because Novarra won't try to transcode content from a .mobi domain.
                              >

                              Uh, weird. Thanks for the info.

                              Sylvain

                              --
                              Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
                            • Luca Passani
                              ... hehe...not really. I heard you are a fantastic programmer, Sylvain. Unfortunately for us, understanding programming and specs is not enough in this mobile
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 7, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Sylvain Wallez wrote:
                                >
                                >>>
                                >>>
                                >> because Novarra won't try to transcode content from a .mobi domain.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >
                                > Uh, weird. Thanks for the info.
                                >
                                hehe...not really. I heard you are a fantastic programmer, Sylvain.
                                Unfortunately for us, understanding programming and specs is not enough
                                in this mobile world. Accounting for human greed is equally important.
                                If you look at how certain companies make money, you can
                                reverse-engineer their functions and their produce requirement down to
                                the minimum detail.

                                In the case of reformatters, it works like the more stuff they manage to
                                pipe through their stupid proxies, the more TPS they manage to sell to
                                operators (who believed their story about reformatting being the best
                                thing since sliced bread). For this reason, they had the guts of placing
                                the transcoders in the middle of all HTTP traffic. Now, that's a great
                                way to boost transcoder usage, too bad that everyone else gets affected
                                negatively by this.

                                Of course, transcoders vendors knew perfectly well that this approach
                                would wreck havoc for mobile-optimised sites and for everything else
                                using HTTP. So, in order to minimize resistance, rather than
                                implementing a mechanism to seriously protect mobile sites (and lose
                                some of those TPS), they simply whitelisted wap.* and *.mobi domains.
                                After that, they declared that mobile-sites were preserved and they were
                                going to fix the world for each and everyone around. Novarra is by far
                                the worst offenders of all vendors.

                                Anyway, nuff said. Those who have not signed the Manifesto can still do it:

                                http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/manifesto/

                                Luca
                              • Sylvain Wallez
                                ... Got it. The difference with the desktop web is that users are locked inside the operator s walled garden, and have to go through their gates to reach the
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 7, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Luca Passani wrote:
                                  > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
                                  >
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>>
                                  >>> because Novarra won't try to transcode content from a .mobi domain.
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >> Uh, weird. Thanks for the info.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  > hehe...not really. I heard you are a fantastic programmer, Sylvain.
                                  > Unfortunately for us, understanding programming and specs is not enough
                                  > in this mobile world. Accounting for human greed is equally important.
                                  > If you look at how certain companies make money, you can
                                  > reverse-engineer their functions and their produce requirement down to
                                  > the minimum detail.
                                  >
                                  > In the case of reformatters, it works like the more stuff they manage to
                                  > pipe through their stupid proxies, the more TPS they manage to sell to
                                  > operators (who believed their story about reformatting being the best
                                  > thing since sliced bread). For this reason, they had the guts of placing
                                  > the transcoders in the middle of all HTTP traffic. Now, that's a great
                                  > way to boost transcoder usage, too bad that everyone else gets affected
                                  > negatively by this.
                                  >
                                  > Of course, transcoders vendors knew perfectly well that this approach
                                  > would wreck havoc for mobile-optimised sites and for everything else
                                  > using HTTP. So, in order to minimize resistance, rather than
                                  > implementing a mechanism to seriously protect mobile sites (and lose
                                  > some of those TPS), they simply whitelisted wap.* and *.mobi domains.
                                  > After that, they declared that mobile-sites were preserved and they were
                                  > going to fix the world for each and everyone around. Novarra is by far
                                  > the worst offenders of all vendors.
                                  >

                                  Got it.

                                  The difference with the "desktop" web is that users are locked inside
                                  the operator's walled garden, and have to go through their gates to
                                  reach the web. So operators consider they have the right to control,
                                  filter and transform what goes in, which means big bucks for transcoder
                                  vendors.

                                  And those vendors even ignore the existing standards to identify mobile
                                  sites, using URL patterns for white-listing rather than the
                                  well-established mime-type and DTD.

                                  Is this right?

                                  > Anyway, nuff said. Those who have not signed the Manifesto can still do it:
                                  >
                                  > http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/manifesto/
                                  >

                                  Signed!

                                  Sylvain

                                  --
                                  Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
                                • Jason Delport
                                  Yes, Luca is correct but it s not Novarra who caused us the most problems. Novarra had a white list but the early OpenWave implementations in Spain and
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 7, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yes, Luca is correct but it's not Novarra who caused us the most
                                    problems. Novarra had a white list but the early OpenWave
                                    implementations in Spain and Portugal didn't. The notion of per region
                                    per network operator white lists aren't scalable anyway so best to
                                    just get a .mobi domain to be certain.


                                    J

                                    --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Luca Passani <passani@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Sylvain Wallez wrote:
                                    > > Jason Delport wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >> Hi,
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Just a word of warning about using header directives like
                                    > >> Cache-Control and Pragma, these can cause issues when downloading
                                    Java
                                    > >> ME applications on many global network operators (Swisscom being an
                                    > >> example). Through weeks of trial and error testing with clients the
                                    > >> only 100% certainty we found was to use no headers at all. Eventually
                                    > >> we just bought a .mobi domain and always use the correct mime
                                    type and
                                    > >> file extension for JADs and JARs.
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >
                                    > > Out of curiosity, what does a .mobi domain change to the picture?
                                    > >
                                    > because Novarra won't try to transcode content from a .mobi domain.
                                    >
                                    > Luca
                                    >
                                  • Luca Passani
                                    ... this is correct. The point I was trying to make is that while Openwave and InfoGin have at least shown to listen to mobile developers, Novarra have
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 7, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jason Delport wrote:
                                      > Yes, Luca is correct but it's not Novarra who caused us the most
                                      > problems. Novarra had a white list but the early OpenWave
                                      > implementations in Spain and Portugal didn't. The notion of per region
                                      > per network operator white lists aren't scalable anyway so best to
                                      > just get a .mobi domain to be certain.
                                      >
                                      this is correct. The point I was trying to make is that while Openwave
                                      and InfoGin have at least shown to listen to mobile developers, Novarra
                                      have shamlessly ignored the problem as if the problem wasn't there.

                                      Still today, they have not signed the Manifesto.

                                      Luca
                                    • kevin_c_sweeney
                                      ... I don t see why we should be forced to use a .mobi domain (or .wap, another Vodafone claim) to avoid transcoding. It s just so arbitrary that they have no
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 30, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Delport" <jason@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Yes, Luca is correct but it's not Novarra who caused us the most
                                        > problems. Novarra had a white list but the early OpenWave
                                        > implementations in Spain and Portugal didn't. The notion of per region
                                        > per network operator white lists aren't scalable anyway so best to
                                        > just get a .mobi domain to be certain.

                                        I don't see why we should be forced to use a .mobi domain (or .wap,
                                        another Vodafone claim) to avoid transcoding. It's just so arbitrary
                                        that they have no right making this a requirement for not transcoding.
                                        I so far haven't been able to find any reference that says the
                                        'no-transform' cache-control header gets honoured, which is the
                                        simplest, most comprehensive, and actually the correct solution.

                                        For example, I've set up a portal on the host/domain 'da.gp' - this
                                        makes it very easy for people with standard phone keypads (ITU E
                                        1.161) to enter the portal domain. Since it's also a keyboard pattern
                                        (32147) it's difficult to forget, so I believe it's useful.

                                        I don't want my portal users to see my content transcoded and
                                        embellished with adverts and such things. Neither do I want to use a
                                        .mobi domain, because it defeats the purpose and convenience of
                                        http://da.gp

                                        So Vodafone's suggested workarounds are completely unacceptable to me.

                                        Kevin
                                      • Tom Hume
                                        I d agree with you insofar as it s not ideal to have to use any sort of domain name (prefix, e.g. m. or wap. - or suffix like .mobi) to be automatically
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 30, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'd agree with you insofar as it's not ideal to have to use any sort
                                          of domain name (prefix, e.g. m. or wap. - or suffix like .mobi) to be
                                          automatically whitelisted.

                                          But it works, today.

                                          On 30 Jul 2008, at 13:54, kevin_c_sweeney wrote:

                                          > I don't want my portal users to see my content transcoded and
                                          > embellished with adverts and such things. Neither do I want to use a
                                          > .mobi domain, because it defeats the purpose and convenience of
                                          > http://da.gp

                                          --
                                          Future Platforms Ltd
                                          e: Tom.Hume@...
                                          t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
                                          m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
                                          company: www.futureplatforms.com
                                          personal: tomhume.org





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • kevin_c_sweeney
                                          ... I (politely!) disagree. Looking down my list of useful mobile sites, the variety of host/domain/path combinations is immediately obvious. As I think Luca
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In wmlprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > I'd agree with you insofar as it's not ideal to have to use any sort
                                            > of domain name (prefix, e.g. m. or wap. - or suffix like .mobi) to be
                                            > automatically whitelisted.
                                            >
                                            > But it works, today.

                                            I (politely!) disagree. Looking down my list of useful mobile sites,
                                            the variety of host/domain/path combinations is immediately obvious.

                                            As I think Luca suggested way back, trying to make a site meet the
                                            whims of every network operator in every country is futile.

                                            Further, converse to the case where mobile content should be left
                                            untouched, it's quite possible that someone would be happy for some
                                            pages served from a .mobi domain to be transcoded - for example
                                            intranet pages that we might want to expose to company employees.

                                            What Vodafone have been doing is such a huge faux-pas that it has led
                                            to otherwise rational people accepting absurd solutions to a
                                            relatively simple problem. They will back down eventually, I just hope
                                            it's sooner rather than later.

                                            The cache-control no-transform header works far better. If I go to the
                                            trouble of saying that my content doesn't need to be transcoded, then
                                            I should be trusted with that decision.

                                            Kevin
                                          • Tom Hume
                                            I completely agree with every paragraph. So, two questions: 1. What else works today to prevent transcoding, other than an m. prefix or a .mobi suffix? And 2.
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 31, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I completely agree with every paragraph.

                                              So, two questions:

                                              1. What else works today to prevent transcoding, other than an m.
                                              prefix or a .mobi suffix? And

                                              2. Is the problem confined to Vodafone? (I'm slightly out of touch
                                              with who's deployed what transcoding proxies and how they have them
                                              configured)

                                              On 31 Jul 2008, at 12:51, kevin_c_sweeney wrote:

                                              > I (politely!) disagree. Looking down my list of useful mobile sites,
                                              > the variety of host/domain/path combinations is immediately obvious.
                                              >
                                              > As I think Luca suggested way back, trying to make a site meet the
                                              > whims of every network operator in every country is futile.
                                              >
                                              > Further, converse to the case where mobile content should be left
                                              > untouched, it's quite possible that someone would be happy for some
                                              > pages served from a .mobi domain to be transcoded - for example
                                              > intranet pages that we might want to expose to company employees.
                                              >
                                              > What Vodafone have been doing is such a huge faux-pas that it has led
                                              > to otherwise rational people accepting absurd solutions to a
                                              > relatively simple problem. They will back down eventually, I just hope
                                              > it's sooner rather than later.
                                              >
                                              > The cache-control no-transform header works far better. If I go to the
                                              > trouble of saying that my content doesn't need to be transcoded, then
                                              > I should be trusted with that decision.

                                              --
                                              Future Platforms Ltd
                                              e: Tom.Hume@...
                                              t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
                                              m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
                                              company: www.futureplatforms.com
                                              personal: tomhume.org





                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.