is_wireless_device false positive in some case

[contactlab]

Hi,
I'm using the wurfl api 1.4.4 and the latest wurfl xml (<ver>db.scientiamobile.com - 2013-01-13 00:00:01</ver>)

Looking at some results I see a false positive behavior returned from the is_wireless_device capability, here some examples:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Outlook-Express/7.0 (MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; TmstmpExt)
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10_4_11; nl-nl) AppleWebKit/533.19.4 (KHTML, like Gecko)
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Microsoft Office/14.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Microsoft Outlook 14.0.4734; Pro; ms-office; MSOffice 14)
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

YahooExternalCache
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

Python-urllib/2.7
id:generic brand_name:, model_name:, is_wireless_device:true, is_tablet:false

...

There is a way to avoid this "error"?

My sample code to decode the user-agent:

Code: Select all

WURFLHolder wurflHolder = new CustomWURFLHolder( new File("/path/to/wurfl.xml") );
WURFLManager wurfl = wurflHolder.getWURFLManager();
wurfl.setEngineTarget(EngineTarget.accuracy);
Device device = wurfl.getDeviceForRequest(useragent);

Thanks in advance
Cristian.

[sm_support2]

Thank you Christian. What is happening here is that these UAs are (normally) rare enough that WURFL isn't detecting them and they end up as generic matches (which, at the moment, errs on the side of mobile).

We will look at this and probably add new profiles to make sure that they match more reasonably.
What is your suggestion for categorizing these? generic desktop application?

Please observe that "Python-urllib/2.7" is generated by a Python script, so, while unlikely to be a mobile device, there is not much you can say about the nature of the beast...

[contactlab]

We will look at this and probably add new profiles to make sure that they match more reasonably.
What is your suggestion for categorizing these? generic desktop application?

Thank you for your reply
I think that a possible categorization can be, as you suggested, "generic desktop application" for results like:
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.2; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4"
"Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 Lightning/1.9"
"Outlook-Express/7.0 (MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0; InfoPath.1; .NET4.0C; TmstmpExt)"

and more, but also using same categorization for ua like:

"Outlook-Express/7.0 (MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; BRI/2; TmstmpExt)"
which at the moment are recognized as id:generic_web_browser



PS: checking my results I see a lot of "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_5) AppleWebKit/534.57.7 (KHTML, like Gecko)" decoded as a "id:generic_web_browser"

Kind regards,
Cristian