Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***ProxRocks*** · Oct. 17, 2006, 03:21 PM

I was inserting the iframe primarily because I didn't need any "new" .js, it was a means to prevent the "prefetch" by using .js already contained within my sidki-based config...

Basically, the "end in mind" is identical - to prevent "contact" with the host of the Flash file until I click something...

I'm up-and-running with v9 now (my past problems were due to the manner in which I inserted the .js content)...

I'm impressed with the notion of a local flash/js combo that then, upon user intervention, goes out and fetches the original flash (if I'm following correctly)...

In my personal opinion, replacing the "eye sore" (would not a local Flash still fall within that classification? [much less, of course]) with a local file is certainly the way to go, though I prefer an "unobtrusive" link (the blue background provided by the already present to the config .css file is a 'bonus')...

The advantage I see here (and I think we're on the same page) is that the matching expression is extremely "simple" in comparison to many Flash-targeting filters...

***z12*** · Oct. 17, 2006, 04:53 PM

ProxRocks Wrote:I'm up-and-running with v9 now (my past problems were due to the manner in which I inserted the .js content)...

Good deal. It seems that when you inject js code via a web filter you need to add \n\r after each line. Easier to use external js files.

ProxRocks Wrote:In my personal opinion, replacing the "eye sore" (would not a local Flash still fall within that classification? [much less, of course]) with a local file is certainly the way to go, though I prefer an "unobtrusive" link

Check out the flash on this page, (about 2.5 kbytes):

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebus...m=business

From the looks of it, you wouldn't know it was flash. Thats more or less what I was thinking about.

ProxRocks Wrote:The advantage I see here (and I think we're on the same page) is that the matching expression is extremely "simple" in comparison to many Flash-targeting filters...

Even better, if things go as planned, a web filter would not be needed.

BTW, JJoe started a new thread for replacing flash with flash :
http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=876

Mike

***ProxRocks*** · Oct. 17, 2006, 05:29 PM

z12 Wrote:Check out the flash on this page, (about 2.5 kbytes):

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebus...m=business

From the looks of it, you wouldn't know it was flash.

Mike

ah yes, good example...

***ProxRocks*** · Oct. 17, 2006, 06:10 PM

z12 Wrote:I'm thinking of dropping the document.write intercept code as it no longer seems necessary. I've been using a different image for when document.write intercepts the flash and it's been quite some time since I've seen it.

For v9 as posted, I assume what would be of most help to you is if I happen to stumble into a flash_rune being displayed versus the camera?

A "one-way" toggle (my config calls these "fetches" versus "toggles") seems fine for my general preferences...

I've done some "show/hide" 'toggles' in the past, but they rely on placing the "stop this Flash" 'link' placed in sidki's "footer" - is that what you are looking for in regards to "un-toggling"?

If I recall, JD placed a "stop sign" (okay, he used a blue bitmap) in the lower left corner of the original Flash - been a while since I've looked to see how the JD-reincarnate-Grypen config handles "flash toggles"...

***ProxRocks*** · Oct. 18, 2006, 11:48 AM

Wow! A big congrats!, btw...

Just stumbled into an .swf that ANNOYS me once per week but that sidki/JD/Grypen Flash togglers (and feeble attempts at toggling it myself) do not catch but v9 above does catch... AWESOME...

It's on an https site, so I kind of just "lived with it" - until now, lol... Good riddance to the ol' eyesore...

But the odd thing is, upon a debug, your "pattern" filter doesn't seem to be "matching"... But yet I *am* seeing the camera.jpg and it is 'blocking and fetching'...

For yours (and sidki's) reference, the Flash is being "inserted" with the following lines of code:

In the header section:

Code:

function getSS1Image()

                {

                    return 'ASP_ClientBanner_PlantPennies_flash.swf';

                }

                function getSS1Link()

                {

                    return "INGDirect.html?command=displayInitialMoveMoney";

                }

                function getSS1Description()

                {

                    return 'Special Offer';

                }

                function getSS1BannerLocation()

                {

                    return 'https://home.ingdirect.com/images/smartsell/';

                }

In the body:

Code:

<script type="text/javascript">

   document.write("[url=" + getSS1Link() + "'><img src='" + getSS1BannerLocation() 

+ getNonFlashImage(getSS1Image()) + "' width='234' height='60' border='0'/>[/url]");

</script>

***ProxRocks*** · Oct. 18, 2006, 01:33 PM

confirmed (in case you caught my previous edit to the above pertaining to browser cache which now no longer applies)...

the doc-writ .swf as noted above IS being "fetched"...

man, blocking that POS eyesore is a GODSEND!...

filtering https sites is becoming increasingly more of a MUST - from eyesores as above to popup "surveys"...

Prox ROCKS!!!

***z12*** · Oct. 18, 2006, 04:50 PM

ProxRocks Wrote:confirmed (in case you caught my previous edit to the above pertaining to browser cache which now no longer applies)...

the doc-writ .swf as noted above IS being "fetched"...

man, blocking that POS eyesore is a GODSEND!...

Missed the edit. Glad it seems to be working, I appreciate the feedback.

From the code you posted, can't really tell what there doing other than js.

From time to time I have seen log matches without getting the rune or camera image. Anymore, I've quit investigating these unless I get a js error.

If we get the "replace flash with flash" filter going, than I plan on using this filter as a generic "catch all" to match other "objects". Needless to say, I'm keeping a close eye on this filter as it will still be useful.

I suppose different web filters could be created for this filter to match specific "object" types. The underlying js would be the same.

PROX does ROCK Smile!

Mike