General :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
Regarding how K-M 1.02 displays web pages, the adblock.css filter set works just fine. However, if I understand correctly, css does not save bandwidth. That is, the files are still downloaded but merely not displayed.
If I understand the hostperm.1 file correctly, any URLs blocked there are not downloaded, which saves bandwidth.
Has anybody worked with using hostperm.1 rather than adblock.css? What kind of results did you see?
hostperm.1 has the allow and block rules for cookies and images, nothing else.
In (Edit > Preferences > Privacy), the two "Exceptions" buttons and the "Authorized websites" button actually manipulate hostperm.1. hostperm.1 is very slightly more powerful than that--it allows you to blacklist popups as well (not just whitelist)--but that's all.
And yeah, things blocked from hostperm.1 won't get downloaded.
Oh, one more thing hostperm.1 can do that the dialogs can't: whitelist session cookies.
(Actually I'm not very sure about the popup blacklist thing--SeaMonkey doesn't have a UI for it either, but I think it's really possible to do manually.)
Hm, I notice that you know these things already, sorry.
Actually, hostperm.1 can do more things. For example, it can block the iframe from specific domain. Try the latest K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 Beta4, it has this function built-in.
The only way to save bandwidth is using hosts file (without extension) in the X:\windows directory\system32\drivers\etc\
But there is one problem, you block anything comming from a domain, for example, you visit yahoo.com and the ads comes from yahoo.com/ads, you could block yahoo.com/ads but doesn't work because hosts file doesn't allow directories, you just need to block yahoo.com and that block to you to access any page under yahoo.com
Yes, CSS doesn't save bandwidth but is better than nothing.
host subdocument 2 doubleclick.net
Oh, that's interesting! I'll definitely try it out.
The new K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 RC2 now has a hostperm.1 editor called Ad-Filter now, it can easily add/modify/remove specific entry for images, iframes and flash.
Hao
General discussion about K-Meleon
Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
Peabody
Date: February 15, 2007 07:55AM
Regarding how K-M 1.02 displays web pages, the adblock.css filter set works just fine. However, if I understand correctly, css does not save bandwidth. That is, the files are still downloaded but merely not displayed.
If I understand the hostperm.1 file correctly, any URLs blocked there are not downloaded, which saves bandwidth.
Has anybody worked with using hostperm.1 rather than adblock.css? What kind of results did you see?
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
BenoitRen
Date: February 15, 2007 01:58PM
hostperm.1 has the allow and block rules for cookies and images, nothing else.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
rmn
Date: February 16, 2007 04:14AM
In (Edit > Preferences > Privacy), the two "Exceptions" buttons and the "Authorized websites" button actually manipulate hostperm.1. hostperm.1 is very slightly more powerful than that--it allows you to blacklist popups as well (not just whitelist)--but that's all.
And yeah, things blocked from hostperm.1 won't get downloaded.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
rmn
Date: February 16, 2007 04:26AM
Oh, one more thing hostperm.1 can do that the dialogs can't: whitelist session cookies.
(Actually I'm not very sure about the popup blacklist thing--SeaMonkey doesn't have a UI for it either, but I think it's really possible to do manually.)
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
rmn
Date: February 16, 2007 05:17AM
Hm, I notice that you know these things already, sorry.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
Hao Jiang
Date: February 16, 2007 03:24PM
Quote
rmn
In (Edit > Preferences > Privacy), the two "Exceptions" buttons and the "Authorized websites" button actually manipulate hostperm.1. hostperm.1 is very slightly more powerful than that--it allows you to blacklist popups as well (not just whitelist)--but that's all.
And yeah, things blocked from hostperm.1 won't get downloaded.
Actually, hostperm.1 can do more things. For example, it can block the iframe from specific domain. Try the latest K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 Beta4, it has this function built-in.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
JohnHell
Date: February 16, 2007 03:29PM
The only way to save bandwidth is using hosts file (without extension) in the X:\windows directory\system32\drivers\etc\
But there is one problem, you block anything comming from a domain, for example, you visit yahoo.com and the ads comes from yahoo.com/ads, you could block yahoo.com/ads but doesn't work because hosts file doesn't allow directories, you just need to block yahoo.com and that block to you to access any page under yahoo.com
Yes, CSS doesn't save bandwidth but is better than nothing.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
Peabody
Date: February 16, 2007 10:20PM
Would you please post an example of such an entry? For example, this is my guess:Quote
Actually, hostperm.1 can do more things. For example, it can block the iframe from specific domain. Try the latest K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 Beta4, it has this function built-in.
host subdocument 2 doubleclick.net
Quote
The only way to save bandwidth is using hosts file (without extension) in the X:\windows directory\system32\drivers\etc[/quote]
Once upon a time I used a hosts file, but when I began also using GNU/Linux, I decided to stop using the hosts file as an ad blocker because a huge hosts file does slow a system in certain (but not all) respects. Additionally, as mentioned, a hosts file is good only for top level domain names and cannot be used to control ads at the sub domain level. Yes, a hosts file will indeed reduce bandwidth because the IP address is localized to localhost (127.0.0.1). But these days I prefer to use the hosts file only as a miniature DNS server for all of my browser bookmarks and small home network.
Which is why CSS is often called the poor person's ad blocker.Quote
Yes, CSS doesn't save bandwidth but is better than nothing.
In my original post I only wanted to know whether the hostperm.1 file saved bandwidth. I experimented a little yesterday and the best I can tell, any item blocked in the hostperm.1 file will indeed reduce bandwidth by not fetching any related info, including a DNS look-up. The resulting file can be quite large, however, but I noticed no impact on browsing. I tried this in Firefox too. I would appreciate further comment from more experienced people.
Many people use more than one browser. Therefore a drawback with a browser-based ad blocking scheme is that each browser must be configured individually. There is a web site where ad blocking lists are available in many formats, but to me, individually updating each browser is inefficient.
I use Squid on my boxes and I am now testing that as my primary ad blocker using a simple acl (access control list). I have restored my original hostperm.1 files and temporarily disabled the related CSS files. That is, my browsers now have no ad blocking support configured and I must depend solely upon Squid to block ads. The approach is working just fine.
I am studying whether using the Privoxy proxy might accomplish the same thing. Possibly by configuring Privoxy correctly, I might be able to establish several rules (in addition to ad blocking) affecting all browsers and thereafter not worry about making concurrent changes in each browser to sustain consistency. I would appreciate any comments from users who are familiar with Privoxy.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
Peabody
Date: February 16, 2007 10:23PM
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
rmn
Date: February 17, 2007 08:22AM
Quote
Hao Jiang
Actually, hostperm.1 can do more things. For example, it can block the iframe from specific domain. Try the latest K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 Beta4, it has this function built-in.
Oh, that's interesting! I'll definitely try it out.
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
Hao Jiang
Date: May 11, 2007 07:29AM
The new K-MeleonCCF ME 0.07 RC2 now has a hostperm.1 editor called Ad-Filter now, it can easily add/modify/remove specific entry for images, iframes and flash.
Hao
Re: Adblock.css vs. hostperm.1
Posted by:
666
Date: May 14, 2007 10:09AM
Quote
JohnHell
The only way to save bandwidth is using hosts file (without extension) in the X:\windows directory\system32\drivers\etc[/quote]
Or run WebWasher: http://www.cyberguard.com/products/webwasher/webwasher_products/classic/download/index.html?lang=de_EN
English