Post Reply 
Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
May. 01, 2009, 01:42 PM
Post: #1
Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
There is a longtime member, SUMware, at dslreports who is saying that Proxo, with your filters, misses so many ads, web bugs, other bad stuff that he feels that using AdBlock Plus to catch everything Proxo misses is essential. He thinks your filter are excellent but he claims that Proxo with your filters, or anyone's, misses a lot stuff that should be filtered.

He just posted a log from AdBlock Plus that he says shows all the stuff it caught that Proxo failed to catch. I can't make much out of the log. Would some folks here check it out? You might want to read most of the thread as the latter part of it is about Proxo, Google/Ajax, your filters.

I told him that I have not seen a SINGLE ad with your filters and that my only gripe has been Google Suggest (until I got Kye-U's filters) and Google's move to Ajax on Firefox. IMO, Proxo filters webbugs, all sorts of stuff beside ads and I find hard to believe that Proxo is missing so much.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22323207-
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 05:38 PM
Post: #2
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
I think the text that he copied/pasted was the reg-ex filters in ABP, and I can see several different domains mentioned, such as Google, PCWorld, Clickability, etc.

One thing that's important to note is the community-bases behind ABP and Proxomitron. Proxomitron's is dwarfed by ABP's, which has many contributors and testers.

Needless to say, I will continue using Proxomitron and try to contribute as much as possible to the community. This being said, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed: Sidki, whenever, lnminente, bugger, ProxRocks, Oddysey, jp10558, Toppy, and to all other active members.

Sidki and Grypen have accomplished many feats that exceed ABP's ability to merely filter ads. Some of these include spoofing the Google cookie to remove the persistent ID, "taming" JavaScript by manipulating dangerous functions, etc. If one just wants to focus on the removal of ads, ABP should be sufficient. If one wants to shift their focus to include all other aspects of the Internet, JavaScript, cookies, HTTP headers, then Proxomitron (or a similar program) is needed.
Visit this user's website
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 06:14 PM
Post: #3
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
Well exactly, on pure ad-blocking, ABP may be much stronger, but there also ends the whole ABP adventure, Proxomitron & sidki's config offer hundreds if not thousands of other options, one can only do with Proxo. Therefor, Proxo is there to stay, I use ABP too, mainly because it is regularly updated for blocking (sub)domains, that's the only things that missing in Proxo, a daily updated domain filter.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 06:32 PM
Post: #4
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
Proxo really is so much MORE than just being a mere ad-blocker...
i think people that think of Proxo as nothing more than a method to block ads have never dug deeper...


it fills in passwords for me and automatically clicks "login"...
it changes the retarded black text on a dark blue or brown background into a contrast that i can actually read without squinting (and i'm 30-something with 20/20 vision)...
it prevents gyrating gifs from, well, "gyrating"...
it stops stupid scrolling text...

heck, just having an ad-blocker and a password form-filler in ONE application is saving resources from needing two apps/brower-plugins to do this for me...

there are THOUSANDS of things that Proxo can do that NOTHING else out there can do...
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 07:58 PM (This post was last modified: May. 01, 2009 10:00 PM by lnminente.)
Post: #5
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
-Thanks to you Kye-U for maintaining this forum [Image: happy0034.gif]

-Every keyword in the easy adlist can be used in our adlist (I do). The easiest way is putting a \ before every /,?,&,= and deleting the lines wich has a $, or better replacing them for some tests. Later create an outgoing HTTP header filter for blocking requests to AdSources with that list. It works flawlessly Smile!

-A match in ABP doesn't mean proxomitron didn't caught it. It depends on the replacement code we used. If we hide a div, the image will be downloaded but not shown, so ABP will block its request and count it, but it was really caught by proxomitron.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 10:04 PM
Post: #6
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
For solely ad blocking in Firefox then ABP seems like a very good and useful utility. Proxo and other filtering proxies don't get in the way of that, they work well with or without ABP.

I doubt anyone uses Firefox exclusively, most will also use some other browser on occasion. ABP can't help its users with other browsers or filtering beyond a few simple blocking mechanisms.

I don't see where there's any conflict for discussion. People who use Firefox are wise to use ABP with a decent filter set. Them and also everyone else in the world would be wise to use a personal proxy with a decent filter set.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 01, 2009, 10:32 PM
Post: #7
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
Hey if ABP filters are so strong can't we import into our block list? I mean write a perl script the extract and sort the relevant bits of ABP list into AdDomain, AdHosts, Adkeys.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 02, 2009, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: May. 02, 2009 12:26 AM by 43unite.)
Post: #8
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
It seems to me that no protection is 100% complete. And as existing threats and issues change and new ones emerge various layers of protective applications complement each other. I appreciate Proxo and wouldn't surf without it. But it would be shortsighted to expect Proxo to handle everything that exists now and in the future. That's just reality, not a Proxo fault. So, for me it's logical to use whatever makes sense, in addition to Proxo, as a complement to it. Like others have said, it's much more than just about ad blocking. Proxo performs functions and has capabilities that no others match. So I don't see a problem here. Proxo is not being degraded. People can use whatever they want. And those that don't use, or know about Proxomitron need something, right? LOL.

Mele, if you don't want to use ABP then don't. No biggie. It's not an exclusivity conflict, nor a threat against Proxo, an either/or choice. Remember the concept of 'layered protection'? Proxo is superb. I add my own filters as needed. Perhaps you can, too.

(May. 01, 2009 10:32 PM)bugger Wrote:  Hey if ABP filters are so strong can't we import into our block list? I mean write a perl script the extract and sort the relevant bits of ABP list into AdDomain, AdHosts, Adkeys.
As was pointed out earlier, this could probably be done with effort if so desired. Since ABP can be potentially updated at least once daily the applicable Proxo components would require some form of user or group periodic and regular updating as well.

Hats off to all the developers and contributors here who help strengthen and enhance Proxo's unique capabilities.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 02, 2009, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: May. 02, 2009 01:27 PM by sidki3003.)
Post: #9
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
(May. 01, 2009 01:42 PM)Mele20 Wrote:  Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?

Obviously, if i would think so, i wouldn't continue to develop the config.
I'm not using AdBlock Plus.

There would probably be a lot to say about anti-ad and, IMO much more important, anti-tracking strategies. In short, assuming that ABP "hits" directly translate to Proxomitron "misses" is too simple.

Also, i think that the number of protection layers you need to feel safe depends on personal factors.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 07, 2009, 07:41 AM
Post: #10
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
This is off the specific topic here, but don't we feel that blocking every ad is bad for the net, because many sites need ad revenue to survive and expand?
I mean, regardless of whether or not we buy something we see on an ad, don't sites often benefit financially by a site visitor simply clicking on a page and being presented with the ad? I suppose I'm talking about 'click-through' revenue, if such a thing does actually exist beyond in my mind.

If that is the case, how specifically can we setup Prox+Sidki to achieve such a balance between viewing most ads but still avoiding most tracking/profiling? (Probably still blocking overly invasive ads such as popups and popunders, Flash ads that jump out at you on mouseover, etc)
I do appreciate however that a certain amount of those two sides may not be seperable.
I already have a rough idea of how I think I/we could set up Sidki + Prox in such a way from asking something similar a year or so ago, but I'd like to check to be sure of the most preferable filter combination currently.

Thanks,
Lee

PS On this actual topic;
As I said a few months ago, I have Adblock Plus in circuit without a list enabled in it. I just use it to block the odd ad on the odd site because I find it easier to use than Prox. Currently however, I think I only have 2 specific entries in use.
I use a similar principle with NoScript, in that I keep it in circuit but 'allowing all' with the odd specific exception. Again, not many; only one currently I think, which I could actually do fairly similarly and easily with Prox.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 07, 2009, 08:35 AM
Post: #11
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
ahhhh......if we want to help ads supported page.....we can write a filter to randomly click on ads :P
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 07, 2009, 11:06 AM
Post: #12
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
(May. 07, 2009 07:41 AM)leecovuk Wrote:  This is off the specific topic here, but don't we feel that blocking every ad is bad for the net, because many sites need ad revenue to survive and expand?

Doing so is definitely controversial. However, this has been discussed many times before, at CastleCops and prox-list, so, personally, i am reluctant to debate this again.

Nonetheless, i encourage everyone who likes to support certain sites living on ads to add them to the user IncludeExclude list, along with the keyword "a_ads".


Quote:I already have a rough idea of how I think I/we could set up Sidki + Prox in such a way from asking something similar a year or so ago, [...]

So what's your idea?
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 08, 2009, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: May. 08, 2009 09:35 AM by leecovuk.)
Post: #13
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
Quote:So what's your idea?

I can't find the topic at the moment (it may even have been at Castlecops rather than here), but I think you said, Sidki, something along the lines of :-
(although my question to you then wasn't specifically about viewing ads and still supporting ad revenue)

Under Web Filters, Ads, have all filters selected except for
+ On-Domain Banners
- On-Domain Ad Hosts
- On-Domain Ad Paths

and under Web Filters, Anti-Ad III - Specific, turn them all off.

Would that or something similar be a compromise along the lines of what I was saying?

Or in fact, is any revenue derived from ads intrinsically linked to tracking, so I/we would need to (also) set up to allow most/all forms of tracking?
If this is the case, then, being honest, I would probably not want to do this, meaning my 'goodwill gesture' to the net would vanish. Hypocritical as that may well be.

Lee
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
May. 08, 2009, 10:07 AM
Post: #14
RE: Is AdBlock Plus needed to filter everything Proxo misses?
(May. 08, 2009 09:32 AM)leecovuk Wrote:  Under Web Filters, Ads, have all filters selected except for
+ On-Domain Banners
- On-Domain Ad Hosts
- On-Domain Ad Paths

and under Web Filters, Anti-Ad III - Specific, turn them all off.

Would that or something similar be a compromise along the lines of what I was saying?

Sounds good. Smile!


Quote:Or in fact, is any revenue derived from ads intrinsically linked to tracking, so I/we would need to (also) set up to allow most/all forms of tracking?

I don't think so.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: