Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #17339 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "!!Credit" <payroll@qi3.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-26 04:56 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-02-20 03:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 44 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "!!Credit" <payroll@qi3.com> - 2019-01-26 04:56 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-26 10:54 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently outlook shitemail <microsuck@msn.com> - 2019-01-26 13:14 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2019-01-27 00:50 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-01-27 00:06 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-27 19:30 -0400
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-27 11:11 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-27 19:25 -0400
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-28 09:25 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-01-28 23:46 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 00:25 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-02-01 00:37 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:58 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:10 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:54 +0000
Pi-hole (Was: Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 07:59 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> - 2019-02-01 09:00 -0600
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-02 02:05 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2019-02-17 11:42 -0800
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-17 20:24 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> - 2019-02-18 11:27 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 11:35 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:57 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 17:58 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-26 23:15 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-01-26 23:22 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-27 11:09 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:01 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:56 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:26 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:11 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2019-01-27 19:58 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:03 +0100
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-30 22:01 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:34 -0800
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-30 23:54 +0000
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 20:33 -0800
Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2019-02-20 03:31 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | "!!Credit" <payroll@qi3.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-26 04:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <q2gp9t$j8o$2@neodome.net> |
How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks? <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers. If the overhaul goes ahead, Adblock Plus and similar plugins that rely on basic filtering will, with some tweaks, still be able to function to some degree, unlike more ambitious extensions, such as uBlock Origin, which will be harder hit. The drafted changes will limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge. In a note posted Tuesday to the Chromium bug tracker, Raymond Hill, the developer behind uBlock Origin and uMatrix, said the changes contemplated by the Manifest v3 proposal will ruin his ad and content blocking extensions, and take control of content away from users. Content blockers may be used to hide or black-hole ads, but they have broader applications. They're predicated on the notion that users, rather than anyone else, should be able to control how their browser presents and interacts with remote resources. Manifest v3 refers to the specification for browser extension manifest files, which enumerate the resources and capabilities available to browser extensions. Google's stated rationale for making the proposed changes, cutting off blocking plugins, is to improve security, privacy and performance, and supposedly to enhance user control. "Users should have increased control over their extensions," the design document says. "A user should be able to determine what information is available to an extension, and be able to control that privilege." But one way Google would like to achieve these goals involves replacing the webRequest API with a new one, declarativeNetRequest. The webRequest API allows browser extensions, like uBlock Origin, to intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be able to read network requests, not modify them. The declarativeNetRequest allows Chrome (rather than the extension itself) to decide how to handle network requests, thereby removing a possible source of bottlenecks and a potentially useful mechanism for changing browser behavior. "The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on the user's behalf," Google's API documentation explains. Whose privacy exactly? But "better privacy" here means privacy as defined by Google rather than privacy defined by a third-party extension developer. That's fine in scenarios where Google is more trustworthy than a third-party developer; but if Google and its ecosystem of publishers and advertisers are the problem, then users may prefer allowing a third-party to filter network requests, even to the extent such intervention interferes with webpage functionality. "If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin and uMatrix, can no longer exist," said Hill. The proposed changes will diminish the effectiveness of content blocking and ad blocking extensions, though they won't entirely eliminate all ad blocking. The basic filtering mechanism supported by Adblock Plus should still be available to some degree. But uBlock Origin and uMatrix offer more extensive controls, without trying to placate publishers through ad whitelisting, and thus have a little more to lose. Don't forget, Google and other internet advertising networks pay Adblock Plus to whitelist their online adverts. Meanwhile, Google has bunged its own basic ad blocking into its browser. Several other developers commenting on the proposed change expressed dismay, with some speculating that Google is using privacy as a pretext for putting the interests of its ad business over those of browser users. Hill, who said he's waiting for a response from the Google software engineer overseeing this issue, said in an email to The Register: "I understand the point of a declarativeNetRequest API, and I am not against such API. However I don't understand why the blocking ability of the webRequest API – which has existed for over seven years – would be removed (as the design document proposes). I don't see what is to be gained from doing this." Hill observes that several other capabilities will no longer be available under the new API, including blocking media elements larger than a specified size, disable JavaScript execution by injecting Content-Security-Policy directives, and removing the outgoing Cookie headers. And he argues that if these changes get implemented, Chromium will no longer serve users. "Extensions act on behalf of users, they add capabilities to a 'user agent', and deprecating the blocking ability of the webRequest API will essentially decrease the level of user agency in Chromium, to the benefit of web sites which obviously would be happy to have the last word in what resources their pages can fetch/execute/render," he said. "With such a limited declarativeNetRequest API and the deprecation of blocking ability of the webRequest API, I am skeptical 'user agent' will still be a proper category to classify Chromium." Google, however, may yet be willing to address developers' concerns. "These changes are in the design process, as mentioned in the document and the Chromium bug," a Google spokesperson told The Register via email. "Things are subject to change and we will share updates as available." ® Updated to add Following a huge outcry from plugin developers and netizens, Google has reiterated that the proposed changes are not set in stone, and are subject to revision. While the internet goliath wants to rein in the level of access granted to Chrome browser extensions, it is prepared to work through the messy matter with third-party coders – who will have to rewrite parts of their software if this all goes ahead. Also, we're happy to clarify that while Adblock Plus is affected by the draft changes, it will not be whacked quite as hard as other more featureful extensions, such as uBlock Origin. Indeed, the proposed API appears to promote ABP's simple filtering mechanism, rather than support the advanced content blocking other extensions offer. The sticking point is whether or not the proposed limit of 30,000 filter rules will be enough for the likes of Adblock Plus. ADP developers say it won't: their filter list has more than 70,000 entries. "Adblock Plus is, of course, affected by this proposed change, because it would replace the main API that we (and almost all other content blockers) use to block requests with something a bit watered down," a spokesperson said. "Even though we don't know the exact plans for this proposed change, should it get implemented we'll make sure ABP is available for Chrome users."
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-26 10:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gb2sisF6n6dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17339 |
On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could block blocks?
>
><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
>
> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad blockers.
Get a PiHole.
https://pi-hole.net/
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 26th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | outlook shitemail <microsuck@msn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-26 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA9E3D8123C3ACmsnww9edassuckmeoff@46.165.242.91> |
| In reply to | #17344 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in news:gb2sisF6n6dU1@mid.individual.net: > On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: >> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could >> block blocks? >> >><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_cont >>ent_block_change/> >> >> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium >> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad >> blockers. > > Get a PiHole. > > https://pi-hole.net/ > google won't be happy till they control your entire life. Google is a totalitarian nightmare.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-26 18:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <87bm433u94.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #17344 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: > On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: > >> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could >> block blocks? >> >> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> >> >> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium >> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad >> blockers. > > Get a PiHole. > > https://pi-hole.net/ Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. Let pi-hole do your DNS? How does that work? How does any of it work? Not that I use or am likely ever to use Chrome, but I *am* keen on eliding crap, bloat & ads from web pages. Doing pretty well with Linux and local hacks but it's tedious and error-prone so the digital Philosophic Mercury would be nice. Not so much if it's a Black Box from the Cloud with a pseudopod inserted into my system. [groups narrowed to comp.misc] -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 00:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <t5sp4epf4l93a7o6skeptmag8skojo5vri@dim53.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #17348 |
On 26 Jan 2019 18:54:15 -0400, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: > >> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: >> >>> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could >>> block blocks? >>> >>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> >>> >>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium >>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad >>> blockers. >> >> Get a PiHole. >> >> https://pi-hole.net/ > > Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a > great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed > explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. Let pi-hole do > your DNS? How does that work? How does any of it work? > > Not that I use or am likely ever to use Chrome, but I *am* keen on > eliding crap, bloat & ads from web pages. Doing pretty well with > Linux and local hacks but it's tedious and error-prone so the digital > Philosophic Mercury would be nice. Not so much if it's a Black Box from > the Cloud with a pseudopod inserted into my system. > >[groups narrowed to comp.misc] Documentation: https://docs.pi-hole.net/ Use the hamburger menu top left to access different chapters. Open sourse: https://github.com/pi-hole I run it on a Raspberry Pi 3B, never a problem. You have to be able to instruct your router to tell DHCP clients to use that Pi as the DNS they should use, or set up DHCP in Pi-hole. -- Regards, Kees Nuyt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 00:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <slrnq4ptg9.3u3.dan@xps-linux.djph.net> |
| In reply to | #17351 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Kees Nuyt wrote: > On 26 Jan 2019 18:54:15 -0400, Mike Spencer ><mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >> >>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could >>>> block blocks? >>>> >>>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> >>>> >>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium >>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad >>>> blockers. >>> >>> Get a PiHole. >>> >>> https://pi-hole.net/ >> >> Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a >> great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed >> explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. Let pi-hole do >> your DNS? How does that work? How does any of it work? >> >> Not that I use or am likely ever to use Chrome, but I *am* keen on >> eliding crap, bloat & ads from web pages. Doing pretty well with >> Linux and local hacks but it's tedious and error-prone so the digital >> Philosophic Mercury would be nice. Not so much if it's a Black Box from >> the Cloud with a pseudopod inserted into my system. >> >>[groups narrowed to comp.misc] > > Documentation: > https://docs.pi-hole.net/ > Use the hamburger menu top left to access different chapters. > > Open sourse: > https://github.com/pi-hole > > I run it on a Raspberry Pi 3B, never a problem. > You have to be able to instruct your router to tell DHCP clients > to use that Pi as the DNS they should use, or set up DHCP in > Pi-hole. > Nice, kinda looks like the python one(s) that update bind9 (or maybe they borrowed from pihole). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxM9gUACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooFkpwf9H6OtC3RmARdlwySBXvHFhQ3uB5X4l59yMtQS70KCDZEUJxb/ldijxzvX /GChjdM86mGVqZCNyrPCYTaTScAfZy4pNSnZgp7Dk/N9F5dRlLG3SEi2/mGJtBwv 6i01qI04bXcMpChAXzh0DojZNa5NbVX+fxslgRPWf9y8RT/VlcpWqBshbcDpmT0t GkIhS2y/tToYVaSnn5xTMEjPfc0KSHTg8qtMjFzbVesgmWITyA98XE4drkcKZ9HT bIkM4o/YVgnueuwTP57vJSyrm8tlo8FRL0LHIh5h9obc4heEgPAwi2XsJOWuIFmD m+MXZ7s7mz9Q0Uw03h5UcRVOKgj62Q== =lTDZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 19:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <87tvht3ch0.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #17351 |
Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> writes: > On 26 Jan 2019 18:54:15 -0400, Mike Spencer > <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >> >> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: >> >>> >>> Get a PiHole. >>> >>> https://pi-hole.net/ >> >> Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a >> great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed >> explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. Let pi-hole do >> your DNS? How does that work? How does any of it work? >> > > Documentation: > https://docs.pi-hole.net/ > Use the hamburger menu top left to access different chapters. > > Open sourse: > https://github.com/pi-hole TYVM. Couldn't see that on the home page, perhaps because I have js turned off? Dunno. I'll have a look. > I run it on a Raspberry Pi 3B, never a problem. > You have to be able to instruct your router to tell DHCP clients > to use that Pi as the DNS they should use, or set up DHCP in > Pi-hole. I have my several boxen set up with fixed addresses on the home router and there's the question of how it works when my laptop goes away from home. Reading to do. Tnx, -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 11:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <gb5hutFpd31U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17348 |
On 2019-01-26, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
>>> block blocks?
>>>
>>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
>>>
>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>>> blockers.
>>
>> Get a PiHole.
>>
>> https://pi-hole.net/
>
> Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a
> great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed
> explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, respectively.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 27th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-27 19:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <87y3753cq4.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #17354 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: > On 2019-01-26, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >> >> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: >> >>> Get a PiHole. >>> >>> https://pi-hole.net/ >> >> Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it >> as a great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No >> detailed explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. > > Wrong, wrong and wrong, respectively. For someone apparently bright and knowledgeable, you're pretty unhelpful wrt something you yourself are promoting. I did say "on quick scrut" and Kees Nuyt kindly pointed me to documentation that I didn't find on the home page (possibly because I have js turned off?) At least in this instance you stuck with unhelpful belligerence and refrained from potty-mouthed epithets, an improvement worthy of faint praise. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 09:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently |
| Message-ID | <gb8052Fbck2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17356 |
On 2019-01-27, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2019-01-26, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> Get a PiHole.
>>>>
>>>> https://pi-hole.net/
>>>
>>> Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it
>>> as a great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No
>>> detailed explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code.
>>
>> Wrong, wrong and wrong, respectively.
>
> For someone apparently bright and knowledgeable, you're pretty
> unhelpful wrt something you yourself are promoting.
If you want me to do your research for you, you're going to have to
pay me.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 28th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-28 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <861c912c-48c0-d0b9-3a2e-3b5005c750bf@scorecrow.com> |
| In reply to | #17348 |
On 26/01/2019 22:54, Mike Spencer wrote: > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes: > >> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: >> >>> How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could >>> block blocks? >>> >>> <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> >>> >>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium >>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad >>> blockers. >> >> Get a PiHole. >> >> https://pi-hole.net/ > > Um, on quick scrut, looks like "Grab our package, auto-install it as a > great bolus of proprietary code and all will be well." No detailed > explanation of how it works, no FAQ, no source code. Let pi-hole do > your DNS? How does that work? How does any of it work? Actually it's more of a 'great bolus' of open source code. :-) There's an open source DNS and DHCP server and various open blocklists. The pi-hole bit is to pull it them together into a simple to install package with a unified web interface (on an open-source web server) and which auto-updates its blocklists. There's more here <https://docs.pi-hole.net/main/origins/> > Not that I use or am likely ever to use Chrome, but I *am* keen on > eliding crap, bloat & ads from web pages. Doing pretty well with > Linux and local hacks but it's tedious and error-prone so the digital > Philosophic Mercury would be nice. Not so much if it's a Black Box from > the Cloud with a pseudopod inserted into my system. > > [groups narrowed to comp.misc] > -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1o2am8q.9zty4l1rbhbuzN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #17344 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote: > > How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could > >block blocks? > > > ><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/> > > > > Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium > >browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad > >blockers. > > Get a PiHole. > > <https://pi-hole.net/> > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 00:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$1901311933@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #17373 |
In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Get a PiHole. >> <https://pi-hole.net/> > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network? Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and tablets. Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in a second just to do DNS is overkill. Elijah ------ pi-hole also advertises it works for "smart" TVs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbhju4Ff78qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17374 |
On 2019-02-01, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
>> <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
>> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
>
> Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network?
Yes. Well, everything that uses local DNS. At present, my DHCP
server refers everything that asks for a DNS server to my local
server (dnsmasq) which has an 18,000 line file I made from as many
places as I could find blocklists, plus any I've come across since.
So, if you attach to my network (actually, networks, plural) you
get my DNS.
> Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and
> tablets.
Using the DNS approach, it doesn't matter what the client hardware
is.
> Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in
> a second just to do DNS is overkill.
Indeed, but there are probably around ~20 hosts on my home networks,
and don't forget about the Internet-of-Chinese-tat stuff that's spying
on you, which can also be blocked this way.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 32nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1o2bhi8.wyn4umv8fw8gN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #17374 |
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: > In comp.misc, Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Get a PiHole. > >> <https://pi-hole.net/> > > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? > > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> > > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. > > Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network? > Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and > tablets. > > Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in > a second just to do DNS is overkill. > > Elijah > ------ > pi-hole also advertises it works for "smart" TVs > Indeed. I have it set up for each computer and it's true that this solution doesn't work for my Apple phones or tablets. -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20190201090602@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #17374 |
On 2019-02-01, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote: > Does your hosts file solution work for everything on your network? > Usually it is difficult to implement that sort of thing on phones and > tablets. I don't have any smartphones or tablets. > Of course, if you only have the one network connected device, adding in > a second just to do DNS is overkill. Indeed. (Actually I have a few Linux PCs. It's easy enough to implement the hosts file solution on them but I can see the DNS black hole would be convenient.) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gbhjmgFf78qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #17373 |
On 2019-02-01, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-01-26, !!Credit <payroll@qi3.com> wrote:
>> > How many ad blocks could an ad slinger block if an ad slinger could
>> >block blocks?
>> >
>> ><https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/22/google_chrome_browser_ad_content_block_change/>
>> >
>> > Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>> >browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>> >blockers.
>>
>> Get a PiHole.
>>
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
>>
>
> Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com>
> I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.
I'll let you know definitively soon, since my PiHole hardware arrived
a couple of days ago, and I already run a fairly large hosts file
(incorporating the MVPS one), presently [tap, tap, tap] some 18,000
hosts. The PiHole one is larger and it has the ability to blackhole
entire domains, without having to add individual machines, saving
pain like having to add;
0.0.0.0 a.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 b.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 c.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 d.spammingfucks.com
0.0.0.0 e.spammingfucks.com
And so on. Also, the PiHoles lists are automatically updated, saving
me having to do it.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 32nd day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
~ Stercus accidit ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Pi-hole (Was: Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently) |
| Message-ID | <1o2bhmw.fk0tchff8dlfN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #17375 |
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2019-02-01, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote: > > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > > [...] [Subject amended] > >> > >> Get a PiHole. > >> > >> <https://pi-hole.net/> > >> > > > > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? > > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> > > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. > > > > I'll let you know definitively soon, since my PiHole hardware arrived > a couple of days ago, and I already run a fairly large hosts file > (incorporating the MVPS one), presently [tap, tap, tap] some 18,000 > hosts. The PiHole one is larger and it has the ability to blackhole > entire domains, without having to add individual machines, saving > pain like having to add; > > 0.0.0.0 a.spammingfucks.com > 0.0.0.0 b.spammingfucks.com > 0.0.0.0 c.spammingfucks.com > 0.0.0.0 d.spammingfucks.com > 0.0.0.0 e.spammingfucks.com > > And so on. Also, the PiHoles lists are automatically updated, saving > me having to do it. > I look forward to hearing about it, I could do with a nice little project. I did think about doing something similar on my Synology router but eventually decided that discretion was the better part of valour when fiddling with something so central to the network that my better half relies on... -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 07:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q30u9f.3nk.1@nieveler.org> |
| In reply to | #17373 |
On 01.02.2019 01:25, Sn!pe wrote: >> Get a PiHole. >> >> <https://pi-hole.net/> >> > > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. Much better, as it protects ALL devices in your network. Try editing the hosts file on an iPad ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1o2bi4l.1yf6nrt1kne5gwN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #17378 |
Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01.02.2019 01:25, Sn!pe wrote: > >> Get a PiHole. > >> > >> <https://pi-hole.net/> > >> > > > > Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS? > > <https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> > > I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware. > > Much better, as it protects ALL devices in your network. Try editing the > hosts file on an iPad ;-) Indeed! -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web