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