So quiet around Proxomitron ?

[Graycode]

(May. 10, 2010 08:25 AM)whenever Wrote:  Interesting filter language, the syntax seems more readable for human being. It took me longer time to translate those action steps to what they finally do. It might be because I have used Proxomitron long time and its language seems more understandable to me. However, for complex action, your language should win on readability. So far I still couldn't understand many of sidki's filter...

I've been quite impressed by the quality & scale of the mods that people like you & others here have been able to accomplish! Sidki seems to have an uncanny ability to apply that skill.

I never reached that level of brain evolution, so a lot of things need "logging" and "debug" to get them right. The image attached below shows an example that was asked for by one of those smarter-than-me. I think Proxo has something similar.

(May. 10, 2010 08:25 AM)whenever Wrote:  Does it support block file? Does it filter http headers?

Besides the fitler language, could you show us more features? Especially those Proxomitron could not do...

It's what I described in "A Future Proxy" here: http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1140

There I said: "Currently the proxy reflects my personal preference for blocking vs. manipulation. It has quite a few more methods to identify requests to prohibit than it has for content management."

It's hard for me to say what it does that Proxo could not, I'm not as familiar with Proxo as you are. It does do a lot things differently. You could load into it all your favorite large HOSTS files and never have any performance penalty. You could enable the executable filter and be immune from drive-by malware on the web, executables (ELF / EXE data detection) would be permitted only from your white-list of site permissions for that. Proxied FTP is supported, and FTP data can be blocked or filtered like any other data. There's dedicated modules for User-Agent, Cookie, and Referer preferences, and one for more advanced roll-your-own header manipulation.

On the other hand Proxo can be made to decypher SSL and I'm still not wanting that. Proxo's Windows GUI may be easier than my in-your-browser HTML forms approach, and it may do some other things better than my proxy too.

Over a year ago I thought it was almost done. Now It's ... almost done?

[whenever]

(May. 10, 2010 04:57 PM)Graycode Wrote:  It's what I described in "A Future Proxy" here: http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1140

I revisited that thread. It looks to be a VERY promising product. I like below features most:

Regular expressions support
HOSTS file hashing and improved domain blocking
cross-platform

(May. 10, 2010 04:57 PM)Graycode Wrote:  Over a year ago I thought it was almost done. Now It's ... almost done?

Has it been released to public?

(Oct. 31, 2008 06:47 AM)Graycode Wrote:  The full version probably won't be freeware, though I hope to be able to produce a powerful subset that anybody can have.

May we still hope a lite version?

[Graycode]

(May. 11, 2010 08:11 AM)whenever Wrote:  I revisited that thread. It looks to be a VERY promising product. I like below features most:

Regular expressions support
HOSTS file hashing and improved domain blocking
cross-platform

Thank you. Hoping for cross-platform is the main reason this package uses mostly HTML forms vs. Windows GUI. For some time there will only be a Windows version. It's run OK in Linux WINE but that shouldn't count. Other OS have to wait until we're able to hire more help for their development & support.

Quote:Has it been released to public?

No! That's the area where we're not really "almost done". When that happens I expect to loose some credibility here because my motives should then be questioned.

Quote:May we still hope a lite version?

In the other thread I'd be interested in hearing what a lite version would be capable of.

[Graycode]

(May. 07, 2010 01:27 AM)Mele20 Wrote:  As for IPv6...I hadn't really thought about how that will affect Proxo! Geez!!!! My ISP is going migrate the end of THIS YEAR or BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR all of us residential Road Runner cable broadband users to IPv6.

I assume you're using a router. If so, look at your LAN setup page in that router, where you might be specifying your LAN is 192.168.1.0 with a net mask of 255.255.0.0. There's some around, but I've yet to see a home-class router that lets you specify an IPV6 scheme for the LAN. So how exactly would your PC ever get an IPV6 by your own network's DHCP? Even if you have IPV6 enabled on your PC you might never actually use it.

I think there's a lot of routers that are ready for IPV6 on the WAN side to accommodate your ISP, and they'll be doing the translation to/from IPV4 on their LAN side.

An ISP will also have to consider whether they want to cut off directly-connected computers that don't have IPV6 available or not enabled. Your ISP DHCP might provide an IPV4 unless IPV6 was specifically asked for.

On the other side of things, web servers will be using IPV4 (and many also IPV6) for quite a long time. Otherwise the server will not be accessible by as much of the general population. I will be very weary of web servers that are only accessible with IPV6, they're more likely to be idiots or pumping out malware.

It seems likely that for a long time the IPV6 utilization will be made transparent by the ISP and/or by off-the-shelf broadband routers.

In regards to a HTTP proxy I think the most obvious impact in relation to standards will not be much of a problem to most users. In IPV6, an IP-address host format is surrounded by square brackets and various rules governing the colon portions within it. See RFC 2732. Below is a few URL examples specifying an IP host, a couple with a port number as well:

Code:

http://[::1]/index.html
http://[1234:ABCD::2:1]:8000/index.html
http://[FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210]:80/index.html

Maybe Proxo can't figure that out, or maybe Scott already factored that in. Either way it may not matter since you'll be less likely to see or want to bother with links specifying an IPV6 IP address host value than you were the ones specifying a remote IPV4 IP.

[Oddysey]

(May. 07, 2010 01:27 AM)Mele20 Wrote:  Folks will be showing up here because of Google's changes today that are not just for some Fx users but are universal now. Folks hate the changes.

You've got that part right!

(May. 07, 2010 01:27 AM)Mele20 Wrote:  .... the crap on the left on the search page.

.... that crap on the left on a search page has got to go!

I still would like a filter to kill that crap on the left on the results page.

Hmmm, I think I detect a recurring theme here. (!)

Offered only as a FWIW, please accept these spastic pokes at the keyboard as a possible solution to the above problem:

Code:

Name = "kill Google's new crap nav menu"
Active = TRUE
Multi = TRUE
URL = "[^/]++google.com/"
Limit = 6144
Match = "<div id=leftnav role=navigation*</div>"

It works by looking for a certain <div> tag. Until Google changes the id="leftnav" and/or role="navigation" arguments, it should work as intended. So far as I've seen, it removes all of the "Tools" and the "Something Diifferent" boxes.

Doutless the highly regarded programmers here will find many faults with this filter, but all I can say is, it works for me every time I hit up Google.


On the topic of sponsored links, I have to say that I leave them in. I've found many a time when one of them had just what I was looking for, and without having to look through beaucoup results. I say 'So what' if they paid Google for the privileged position on the page. Ironically, about half the time they appeared in the Sponsered section, they were also one of the first two or three links in the normal results section. Guess they didn't trust Google to give them a good ranking.....

All of which is why I can't help you out with a filter for this one - sorry 'bout that.

HTH



Oddysey