Post Reply 
Here we go again!
Mar. 10, 2005, 03:41 AM
Post: #1
 
Gang; (But especially JakBeNymble)


I just glommed onto this little.... interesting, yeah, that's it, interesting tidbit. Seems that this webpage believes that they can do things better and faster than both the HOSTS file and Proxo, vis-a-vis removing ads and/or images.

Take a gander at this site, and report your findings here, please. <_<

Jak, I think you might be interested in the "How this thing works" section. It explains how a javascript can be forced to load when a site is first encountered, and references a document on Netscape's website.

Notes of interest:

At one point, the author states flat out that Proxo may better serve your needs!!

And at another point, he/she states that he started this project, and I quote directly: "(.... when I was looking at interesting problems that JavaScript makes possible)" I'm still lolling at how javascript makes a problem possible. [lol] Big Teeth Cheers


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 03:59 AM
Post: #2
 
Quote:Why Is This Better Than An Ad-removing Proxy?
If you use a ad-removing proxy (such as Junkbuster or Proxomitron or BannerFilter+Squid), then (by definition), all of your content must go through the proxy filter. This might slow down the loading of pages, or cause other problems as the proxy is always running. The Proxy Auto Config mechanism avoids this by avoiding a proxy altogether for the content you actually care about.

Of course, if you want to control or block cookies, or dynamically alter content, then you should try Proxomitron (or Junkbuster) and skip no-ads.

Something seems wrong here...

Quote:Does This Stop Popups / Popunders?
No-ads is not a popup stopper. But, it does stop some popups (as it prevents the loading of JavaScript source that makes the popup happen). And on other popups, it doesn't stop the popup window from appearing, but it stops your browser from loading the content.

If it doesn't, then I'm happy with Proxomitron. I don't want to have a blank popup opening and me having to close it.

I don't see what's so "bad" about using a "proxy filter".

Quote:Personally, I use Mozilla and I enable the Block Unrequested Popup Windows option. I never see any popup advertisements.

What if you don't use Mozilla? You'll be stuck with annoying blank popups.
Visit this user's website
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 04:25 AM
Post: #3
 
That's just a PAC file. There was a discussion about it on hpguru's site and why the hosts file is better.

http://www.hosts-file.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=26

Basically, the hosts file is better because it blocks ALL connections to the site listed in it. A PAC file only blocks the ones that go through the browser.

�{=(~�::[Shea]::��~)=}�
How 'bout you sideburns, you want some of this milk?
This fading text is pretty cool, eh? I bet you wish you had some.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 08:31 AM
Post: #4
 
I read the .pac file. It gave me some hostnames to add to my connection-killer blocklist.
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 10:21 AM
Post: #5
 
Gang;

I kinda wished I had read that pac file before posting this - it's a helluva lot more informative than the web page! <_<

I think I still would have posted it though, if for no other reason than what Siamesecat pointed out - it's a rich source of material to be blocked, and if you're not using the HOSTS file, this could be very handy indeed.

As I'm sure Jak will contribute in a short while, if you need to tell the user to manually configure the browser, then no help has been derived at all for such things as auto-proxy rotation, ala the JakxPack Spoofer Set. Sorry to mis-lead you like that, Jak. Cry

And I'm still waiting for someone to re-write the dll that is responsible for actually looking at the HOSTS file, and allows the use of regexp's. Mega BS sites such as xx.la-valueclick.com, xx.suntimes.com, adserver.*, banner.*, etc. all come to mind here. Lots of room for improvement, IMHO.

About the only place I thought this might make a positive contribution was the fact that you could use it to whitelist some pages on a site, and block the rest. My prime example for that is Yahoo, which now loads their mail page's CSS file from yimg.com. I was blocking that site, due to all the BS content, but now I can't - I have to allow it in general, then block known subsections (us.a1.yimg, us.i1.yimg. etc.) That certainly puts a crimp in my style, lemme tell you. <_< Maybe I outta check out no-ads just for this feature alone. :P


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 03:06 PM
Post: #6
 
I imagine it must be a real pain to verify the hostnames in that script, not to mention debugging. What's with all the ORs? I'd think a single Switch block would be much much faster.

"And I'm still waiting for someone to re-write the dll that is responsible for actually looking at the HOSTS file, and allows the user of regexp's. xx.la-valueclick.com, xx.suntimes.com, adserver.*, banner.*, etc. all come to mind here. Lots of room for improvement, IMHO."

Aside from the fact there is no one process responsible for this, it will never happen. It would break backward and cross-platform compatibility. I however have been made aware of an interesting hosts related software project which should remove the limitations imposed by the flat file structure of the hosts file but I am not at liberty to discuss it. Smile!

Get hpHOSTS!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 08:57 PM
Post: #7
 
hpguru Wrote:I however have been made aware of an interesting hosts related software project which should remove the limitations imposed by the flat file structure of the hosts file but I am not at liberty to discuss it. Smile!
Whoa! Pervert

What's this? [lol]

Can't wait Cheers
Visit this user's website
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 10:08 PM
Post: #8
 
Quote:
hpguru Wrote:I however have been made aware of an interesting hosts related software project which should remove the limitations imposed by the flat file structure of the hosts file but I am not at liberty to discuss it. Smile!
Whoa! Pervert

What's this? [lol]

Can't wait Cheers

I too am on tenterhooks about this. :o I'll take anything, the sooner the better. [lol]


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 10, 2005, 10:16 PM
Post: #9
 
hpguru;
Quote:"And I'm still waiting for someone to re-write the dll that is responsible for actually looking at the HOSTS file, and allows the user of regexp's. xx.la-valueclick.com, xx.suntimes.com, adserver.*, banner.*, etc. all come to mind here. Lots of room for improvement, IMHO."

Aside from the fact there is no one process responsible for this, it will never happen. It would break backward and cross-platform compatibility.
When I said "... re-write the dll", I was generalizing that if the process started somewhere, no matter what platform, then it would rapidly spread across all other platforms. I probably didn't express myself succinctly because I do tend to think in terms of the MS paradigm - "three kernels, three hundred dlls". :P

Quote:I imagine it must be a real pain to verify the hostnames in that script, not to mention debugging.
Seems to me a name is a name, and it should be verifiable no matter where it appears; in a script, in a file, wherever. Just depends on the tools, the time, and/or the perserverence of the tester.

Quote:What's with all the ORs? I'd think a single Switch block would be much much faster.
I believe the author did state on his website that he was just learning about regexp's, and that he was attempting to simplify a previous incarnation of his script. We are in agreement that his code is very kludgy, but then again, I'd be the first to admit that my beginning efforts weren't the cleanest things ever to run through a compiler or interpreter - were yours? Wink


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 11, 2005, 07:01 AM
Post: #10
 
Oddysey,
Quote:I was blocking that site, due to all the BS content, but now I can't - I have to allow it in general, then block known subsections (us.a1.yimg, us.i1.yimg. etc.) That certainly puts a crimp in my style, lemme tell you. dry.gif[dry.gif] Maybe I outta check out no-ads just for this feature alone. tongue.gif[tongue.gif]
Why couldn't you just use the Adlist to block sites but make exceptions for certain subdirectories? For example:
[^.]+.johndoe.com/(^goodstuf)/
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 11, 2005, 08:49 AM
Post: #11
 
Siamesecat;
Quote:Oddysey,
Quote:I was blocking that site, due to all the BS content, but now I can't - I have to allow it in general, then block known subsections (us.a1.yimg, us.i1.yimg. etc.) That certainly puts a crimp in my style, lemme tell you. dry.gif[dry.gif] Maybe I outta check out no-ads just for this feature alone. tongue.gif[tongue.gif]
Why couldn't you just use the Adlist to block sites but make exceptions for certain subdirectories? For example:
[^.]+.johndoe.com/(^goodstuf)/
Good question, why don't I do that? [unsure] Probably because I've never had the need before, and now that I do, I've plumb forgotten about this little gem. (I wonder how many other goodies I've forgotten because I didn't need them at the time, so I just skipped over them instead of studying them.) Thanks for the "dose of coffee to smell", partner! I'll go try it out, and let you know if I remembered correctly how to do it. If I blow it, I'll be back with questions. (And a head hanging in shameful defeat. [rolleyes])


Oddysey

I'm no longer in the rat race - the rats won't have me!
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Mar. 11, 2005, 01:02 PM
Post: #12
 
Hi "Guyz",
Thankx for the info!, . .I've just downloaded the PAC file and I'm going to take closer look at it this evening. Thankx "Oddysey" for pointing Me to that "How this thing works" section, . .I've actually toyed with the idea of just sending all unwanted content to a "black-hole Proxy" like they were suggesting. I tried the "Guide-Scope" Proxy before I was Proxomitron User. It's a Client Software that connects You to an "Ad-busting" Proxy. But with the Client You can set cookies, images, bugs, . .etc. "Click Here"
Be Back Later ,
"JaK" [smoke]
Add Thank You Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: