I would also like a score based system which would put responsibility
of not visiting stupid sites back into the surfer's hands. Whenever
you visit bullshit sites like hackerjews or facebook you will get a
minus point and at the end the worst will get sacked by the
suckommunity.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:41:36PM +0100, hiro wrote:
I would also like a score based system which would put responsibility
of not visiting stupid sites back into the surfer's hands.
Well, I dont think thepiratebay is a stupid site, but it sure has a lot
of spammy ads on it without some adblock
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:41:36PM +0100, hiro wrote:
I would also like a score based system which would put responsibility
of not visiting stupid sites back into the surfer's hands. Whenever
you visit bullshit sites like hackerjews or facebook you will get a
minus point and at the end the
On 2012-11-20 14:07, hiro wrote:
I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
home network. Not only because it blocks ads, but also because it
block fads.
What does 'fad' mean?
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:18:08PM +0100, Adrian Sadłocha wrote:
On 2012-11-20 14:07, hiro wrote:
I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
home network. Not only because it blocks ads, but also because it
block fads.
What does 'fad' mean?
It means person who
please give back the .eu domain you grabbed there. and get back into school.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Adrian Sadłocha adr...@sadlocha.eu wrote:
On 2012-11-20 14:07, hiro wrote:
I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
home network. Not only because it
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:07 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
home network. Not only because it blocks ads, but also because it
block fads.
How do you proceed? Do you actually blackhole blocked domains, or do
you redirect
I redirect to localhost which will most of the time just send an 404
Greetings.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:23:08 +0100 Sam Watkins s...@nipl.net wrote:
On 11-20 08:08, Andrew Hills wrote:
Would it be possible to disable requests made by the page to any
address outside the page's domain?
This is a worthwhile option for the browser.
It can block many ads, and
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
Cross‐side scripting is already a backwards compatibility to Google,
like Windows is the backward compatibility to the proprietary world. But
yes, it would be a nice toggle for surf, to turn off by default any
--- Kurt H Maier on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:47:46 -0500 ---
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:42:34PM +, Nick wrote:
What I meant is that privoxy will strip out e.g. img
src=badthing.png from the HTML it delivers to the browser, so the
browser will not request it. I think it does the
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:13:06PM +0100, Yoshi Rokuko wrote:
somehow you guys still haven't convinced me of not using a local
/etc/hosts with all these 0.0.0.0 goat.cx in it.
Thanks for letting us know, Yoshi Rokuko.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:54:49AM +, Nick wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:23:08AM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
Cross-site scripting is already a backwards compatibility to Google,
like Windows is the backward compatibility to the proprietary world. But
yes, it would be a
Greetings comrades,
I have been thinking of adding some easy way of adblocking to surf. My
conclusion is, that it is not needed.
By changing the default parameters of surf to »‐ips«, which will disable
all the scripts, the images and plugins by default, nothing wrong is
loaded when some
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:27:39PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
I have been thinking of adding some easy way of adblocking to surf. My
conclusion is, that it is not needed.
[...]
What are you comrades thinking of this?
I don't need adblocking inside the browser. I'm using a hosts
file
I block only in my DNS. I think it's the most important feature of my
home network. Not only because it blocks ads, but also because it
block fads.
On 11/20/12, Christoph Lohmann 2...@r-36.net wrote:
Greetings comrades,
I have been thinking of adding some easy way of adblocking to surf. My
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Christoph Lohmann 2...@r-36.net wrote:
Hosts filtering re‐
quires some callback to filter on a specific hosts file with 15k
lines on every request.
Would it be possible to disable requests made by the page to any
address outside the page's domain?
I want web pages and pdfs to be rendered in the cloud, because my fan
is running hot.
also never forget:
if most web sites suck, use less web sites.
sorry if you consider this off-topic.
Yeah, I agree with the general feeling that adblocking shouldn't be
done in the browser. I prefer privoxy, though it's rather complex.
adsuck is another thing that probably does the job well. /etc/hosts
can do a reasonable job too, as others have mentioned.
Also, there is the fact that adblocking
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:08:01PM +, Nick wrote:
Yeah, I agree with the general feeling that adblocking shouldn't be
done in the browser.
wtf? the ads are DISPLAYED in the browser. it's stupid to blackhole
dns and let requests time out rather than just not making the request in
the first
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:15AM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
wtf? the ads are DISPLAYED in the browser. it's stupid to blackhole
dns and let requests time out rather than just not making the request in
the first place.
The way I do it with a local proxy means that said requests are
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:30:38PM +, Nick wrote:
The way I do it with a local proxy means that said requests are
stripped out of the HTML before reaching the browser. DNS based
things will presumably fail immediately with /etc/hosts, rather
than time out.
But you're still wasting the
What about something like pixelserv (written in perl[1] or C[2]) with
something like hostsblock[3]?
It's a DNS solution, but the timeouts aren't a problem
1: http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/pixelserv.php
2:
Kurt H Maier khm-suckl...@intma.in writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:30:38PM +, Nick wrote:
The way I do it with a local proxy means that said requests are
stripped out of the HTML before reaching the browser. DNS based
things will presumably fail immediately with /etc/hosts, rather
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 04:33:20PM +0100, Troels Henriksen wrote:
Kurt H Maier khm-suckl...@intma.in writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:30:38PM +, Nick wrote:
The way I do it with a local proxy means that said requests are
stripped out of the HTML before reaching the browser. DNS
On 11-20 08:08, Andrew Hills wrote:
Would it be possible to disable requests made by the page to any
address outside the page's domain?
I do exactly this in Firefox with the RequestPolicy. It needs a little
whitelisting (like CDNs), but I really love it.
It doesn't really solve the ad
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:42:34PM +, Nick wrote:
What I meant is that privoxy will strip out e.g. img
src=badthing.png from the HTML it delivers to the browser, so the
browser will not request it. I think it does the same with scripts
etc.
So that makes more sense. It seems to have
so that i don't have to set it up on all my fucking pcs. for me
personally it was easier this way since I already have a dns server
anyway.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:37:09PM +0100, hiro wrote:
so that i don't have to set it up on all my fucking pcs. for me
personally it was easier this way since I already have a dns server
anyway.
sorry I didn't know you lived in a fucking computer lab
On 11-20 08:08, Andrew Hills wrote:
Would it be possible to disable requests made by the page to any
address outside the page's domain?
This is a worthwhile option for the browser.
It can block many ads, and also block cross-site request forgery exploits.
CSRF exploits take advantage of a
30 matches
Mail list logo
