| 1 |
On 2020/02/17 at 02:31am, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I been playing with this add-on and watched some videos on it. While |
| 5 |
> it does some things better, it just isn't specific enough for what I |
| 6 |
> need. In some cases, if I blocked scripts with it, some sites |
| 7 |
> wouldn't work at all or caused other issues. In a way it's better than |
| 8 |
> noscript but it still just doesn't go far enough. I wish adblock |
| 9 |
> would list elements the way it used to. That worked great because I |
| 10 |
> could block scripts on a individual basis. Allow the ones I need and |
| 11 |
> block the ones that cause issues. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm really surprised that umatrix (not ublock origin!) can't do what you |
| 14 |
need. As you note, it is much more granular than NoScript. Blocking |
| 15 |
elements at the subdomain level, you'd think, would be granular enough |
| 16 |
for most web pages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Are you saying you want to additionally allow / block scripts not just |
| 19 |
on a per-subdomain basis but on a per-individual-script basis? I've been |
| 20 |
using things like NoScript and uMatrix for many years, and I don't think |
| 21 |
even I would want to deal with that. How would you know which ones to |
| 22 |
allow? The Reg is showing 7, of which I allow 3. The Guardian has like |
| 23 |
28, of which I allow 19. It would not be fun to try to go through all of |
| 24 |
those to figure out which ones are absolutely necessary. You'd be |
| 25 |
examining, allowing, and reloading 20 times per site, at first. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Maybe the Tor Browser people would be interested in working on such an |
| 28 |
add on? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Chris Spackman chris@××××××××××.com |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
ESL Coordinator The Graham Family of Schools |
| 34 |
ESL Instructor Columbus State Community College |
| 35 |
Japan Exchange and Teaching Program Wajima, Ishikawa 1995-1998 |
| 36 |
Linux user since 1998 Linux User #137532 |
Archives