From: Brian D. <br...@de...> - 2003-06-16 10:34:14
|
Paul Chambers wrote: > I mean no disrespect Hal, but that simply isn't a practical suggestion > for me. It's not like I only download from a small, fixed number of > sites. And in many cases, the pages leading up to the item to be > downloaded are exactly the ones I want to remove the cruft from. > > I appreciate that is a valid workaround for some, but for me it doesn't > solve the root problem. And it certainly wouldn't work for a real > network of users, so in that situation those rules would need to be > disabled, which rather undermines the value of Privoxy. Two comments: First, if you want to avoid the problem completely but continue to use privoxy, then disable the unsolicted-popups filter in the default actions file and re-enable the old popups filter, which does not suffer from those false positives. Second, to everyone: would it make sense to create a patch that allows you to specify which content-types to apply a filter to, and then only apply the unsolicited popups to text/html? I know that wouldn't solve the problem, as I know of plenty of places where PrivoxyWindowOpen rears its head in html (CPAN for instance) but it would stop it from happening in code. I guess the downside would be that it wouldn't filter .js files sent as text/plain. Of course the real fix is nestable regexps (or a true parser) but it looks like that will take awhile. Brian |