![](https://upvote.au/pictrs/image/84065ed2-43b1-4ab2-8678-dfcd7e760a7b.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/q98XK4sKtw.png)
There’s a good explanation about that here: https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
The issue is that a lot of sites used the user-agent to determine if the browser supported particular features (e.g. show a fancy version of a site if the user is using Netscape, otherwise show a basic version for Mosaic, lynx, etc). New browsers had to pretend to be the old good browsers to get the good versions of sites
This is why getting rid of the user agent is a good thing. Sniffing the UA is a mess.
AFAIK they haven’t tried to standardize their implementation, which to me implies that they’re not interested in interoperability. That’s unfortunate. I wouldn’t want to be locked in to a vendor like that.
At least some providers do try. FastMail published the spec for their modern, stateless replacement to IMAP through the IETF as “JMAP”, and built on top of existing RFCs where possible.