Re: Is there a "better NoScript" that makes more sense?

2021-01-22 Thread Joshua Judson Rosen
On 1/22/21 1:24 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > > On Fri, January 22, 2021 1:08 pm, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: >> On 1/22/21 12:26 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yes, it is default-deny and you must enable what you want/need. >>> You can certainly say "enable this JS source for this website

Re: Is there a "better NoScript" that makes more sense?

2021-01-22 Thread Joshua Judson Rosen
On 1/22/21 12:26 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, it is default-deny and you must enable what you want/need. > You can certainly say "enable this JS source for this website only". So > you don't need to enable it globally. How? As I was hoping to thoroughly convey in my previous message,

Is there a "better NoScript" that makes more sense?

2021-01-22 Thread Joshua Judson Rosen
I've been trying out NoScript in Firefox on one of my computers after having seen people recommend it for years, and I'm finding that NoScript's whole permissions model just seems..., how do I put this nicely...: stupid. Or maybe just `stupidly antiquated'? Is there something better? More