| 1 |
On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 08:25:18 BST J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29 August 2017 08:53:16 GMT+02:00, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> >On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:41:53AM +0000, J. Roeleveld wrote |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> Look into proxy servers. |
| 7 |
> >> I think privoxy should be able to do the trick. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> > Looking at the /usr/portage/net-proxy directory, I see several proxy |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> >programs. I checked the privoxy man page at linux.die.net and it |
| 12 |
> >mentions that some features are not available under https. Is this a |
| 13 |
> >privoxy limit, or is it a limitation of proxies in general? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Is "tinyproxy" noticeably simpler than privoxy? My main requirement |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >is to block a list of domains. Is it possible for a proxy to edit a |
| 18 |
> >webpage on-the-fly, so that references to unwanted URLs are stripped |
| 19 |
> >out, and the browser doesn't waste time trying to download from a |
| 20 |
> >blocked adserver? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Checked the FAQ, blocking by host pattern will work. Blocking by content of |
| 23 |
> the page will not. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> For blocking ads, this will be sufficient. |
| 26 |
> If you want to block pages because it mentions cats or other suspicious |
| 27 |
> words, https will not work as the data is encrypted. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> Joost |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It may be worth trying ublock origin addon for Firefox and on Chromium in |
| 33 |
addition try ublock origin extra. They have made a difference here. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
Mick |
Archives