Ok thanks, just submitted.
rfan1560
Users receive reputation points by contributing quality content to the forums.
Posts include post and replies published on the forums.
Post authors can mark replies as Accepted to indicate successful solutions.
Apple Developer Forums admins can mark replies as Apple Recommended to indicate an approved solution
Post
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Ok got it, bug number is: FB9605687
I received a response to my feedback (FB9605687).
Apple Response:
Investigation complete - Works as currently designed
Please know that our engineering team has determined that this issue behaves as intended based on the information provided.
Ppecifying the user-agent is a "should", not a "must".
My Response:
This is unfortunate in my opinion, but the nearest I can figure is that I did not articulate my concerns clearly. I understand that RFC 2616 indicates the User-Agent header "SHOULD" be included (as opposed to "MUST"), but there are good reasons (among them are privacy and security) that you "SHOULD" include it. Again, I can only assume this was a failure on my part to communicate the primary concerns around privacy and security rather than being unconditionally compliant with the HTTP standard. I ask that you please reconsider your position so that otherwise private Internet traffic does not start getting targeted for decryption and inspection when it doesn't need to be.