![]() ![]() They have to be 100% consumable from upstream.ġ) On the community aspect again, I don't see dedicated Reddit groups devoted to finding every single broken website on this software. Adblocking is a cat-and-mouse game, there isn't a single set of features that can implemented once and then the software marked as "done".Ģ) Even assuming that converter does work (which I am doubtful of), Ublock Origin uses a superset of the adblock rules format, so you have to target what Ublock Origin supports, not just what adblockers in general do.Īnd obviously I'm not going to try and recreate those lists myself manually, I don't have the time or energy to do that. ![]() ![]() It's not enough to write one converter that gets updated every 2 years, in the space of those 2 years, Ublock Origin has expanded the syntax it supports. This is kind of exactly what I'm talking about with the difficulty of keeping pace with what is essentially a shared standard in the adblocking community. Short version, I would not trust this repo to convert rules. Additionally I'm seeing multiple issues about basic adblock rules not taking effect. It acts as a CONNECT proxy, so you can run it locally or on a router and if combined with a NAT rule, it can also work transparently (obviously, you need to manually trust a CA certificate for https).ġ) The converter you link has 62 stars and hasn't been updated in 2 years. It can redirect requests (for example, replacing assets from a CDN with a local cache), modify headers (stripping or making cookies temporary, changing user agent, etc.) and even rewrite the content of web pages using regular expressions or any external program.īy default, it has only a basic configuration that blocks tracking and ads, but there are tools that convert adblock rules to the Privoxy format, so it will be functionally equivalent to adblock. It can be used as an adblocker based on domain, request path, HTTP headers, etc, but it can do much more. It's a very old software: it used to be unmaintained and lacking some essential features, but thankfully the development resumed and is now fully fuctional again with the modern web. They're a defense in depth for the requests that slip through other parts of your setup, but they're not a good replacement for a browser extension.Īll you're asking is already possible with Privoxy, which is even stronger than a browser adblocker. Not to say that system wide blockers don't have value, but they're really there for the apps that can't handle their own adblocking. You really need an interface that has insight into not just what requests you're making, but where/why you're making them. And even for simple things like blocking requests based on the current domain - the movement towards DoH and SNI are going to make that harder and harder as time progresses. Ublock Origin will do things like stub Javascript methods on the page. I just don't see that happening any time soon, and I'm not sure that's the direction we would want to move with browsers anyway. To get to the point where I would feel comfortable having my OS handle browser blocking, a reasonable chunk web browser functionality would need to be moved out of the browser and onto the OS. It would be great to move adblocking to an OS/network level, but DNS blocking just isn't comparable to what a browser-level adblocker does. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |