Requests
|
Oct. 16, 2005, 06:55 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
Requests
Hi!
At the moment I'm using Proxomitron but I tested BFilter and I was pleasantly surprised. You are doing a great job. IMHO some new implementations in the future could make BFilter even more attractive. Just some ideas of mine, don't beat me because of them Support for SSL would be nice. I know that it's a risk for newbies but it doesn't have to be activated by default. How if possible about not just eliminating flash animations but inserting the link so everybody can choose between ignoring or watching. Would also be nice to have a few header filters. I don't mean filters for jobs modern browsers can do anyway but filters for jobs no browser can do in an accurate way. How about for instance faking browser identity? Well I guess that's enough for the start Best regards nemo |
|||
Oct. 16, 2005, 09:27 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Requests
Gest Wrote:Support for SSL would be nice. I know that it's a risk for newbies but it doesn't have to be activated by default.There is another reason why SSL filtering is not implemented. There are very few sites that need it. Basically I can name only one: sourceforge.net. Do you have more examples? Gest Wrote:How if possible about not just eliminating flash animations but inserting the link so everybody can choose between ignoring or watching.There is a nice feature that's not documented anywhere except in the ChangeLog: if you click on a removed flash ad, the original will be loaded in its place. No new window, no page reload, just try it - it's cool. Other types of removed ads can also be clicked, although that would be a usual click, no in-place loading of the original will happen. The ability to get through a blocked false-positive was one of the design goals. That's why we draw borders around removed ads. Gest Wrote:Would also be nice to have a few header filters.This just begs the question: why bother? Well, I also care for my privacy. I limit the lifetime of cookies in FireFox. But faking browser identity? That would just break sites that serve different scripts to different browsers, and do very little about my privacy. I only see one valid use for header filters: fixing Content-Type. Let's thank Apache devs for serving unknown mime-types as text/plain, and for other stupid things they did. Having said that, I still don't think that would be enough to justify a major feature like header filters. You can try to prove me wrong. |
|||
Oct. 17, 2005, 06:46 AM
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote: I still don't think that would be enough to justify a major feature like header filters. You can try to prove me wrong.I use header filters to: trim the Accept-Language code to en only (I don't care whose English I get) remove no-cache header settings filter Content-Disposition (although not a big deal for Firefox, it can be for IE) force filtering of Javascript, XML, XSL, XHTML, VBScript control whose cookies are allowed to get in, and whether they are allowed to persist or not remove ETags prevent tracking by my referer kill connections to sites that I think are untrustworthy give certain selected sites certain selected user-agents use Google while giving them a minimum of information about my system |
|||
Oct. 17, 2005, 09:55 AM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
OK, I can now see a few other valid uses for header filters. Most of them can be done with FireFox extensions, but that's not my point. Also, killing connections to certain sites can alredy be done with url patterns:
Code: FORBID http://somesite.com/* I hope I made my point clear. |
|||
Feb. 16, 2006, 02:32 PM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
+1 to header filters - for me the major benefit of proxomitron is that I can rewrite cacheing directives to suite my taste. Over the years I've seen more abuse of cache directives than I can imagine. That can slow surfing down as much or more than adverts. The cache is a surfers best friend if used properly.
Being able to remove or add cache directives on a site / pattern specific basis is unique and useful function (I've seen no extension or other to do than than proxomitron). |
|||
Feb. 16, 2006, 09:07 PM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
I created a poll about header filters. Please vote.
|
|||
Jun. 05, 2006, 06:42 PM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Requests
Suggestion: change the caption of the tray icon menu item from "active/passive" to "activate"/"deactivate". I'm always somewhat confused - if I click "active", does it mean that it is already active or that the click will make it active? I know the answer of course, but that's how it looks.
|
|||
Jun. 05, 2006, 07:10 PM
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Requests
If I change it to "activate"/"deactivate", I'll have to remove the checkbox from there, as it would become meaningless and confusing. If there is no checkbox, people would actually have to read what's written there. I only look at the checkbox. If a tick is there, then it's active.
I agree there is room for improvement here. I think a good idea is to replace the checkbox with some kind of a descriptive image with on/off states. Now if somebody would create one for me... |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|