The new feature on Mozilla to deny images from certain locations is a very good addition. However, this is only the start of what it could (and, IMO, should) be. This could be a replacement for Junkbuster, at least in the image-blocking sense. The "View Image Permissions" dialog box needs the ability to add new URLs in the following matters: an exact match, a glob-style match, or a regular expression. Also, the ability to import/export a database of URLs to block would also be nice. Just model it off of the Junkbuster format, which is basically a flat file with comments. This file could be distributed to others, who won't have to enter in (and find out) every single URL. Me thinks this format/idea could be even further extented to site blocking. Sounds simple enough. The only extra thing I could think of is a re-director page upon finding a blocked page. One could find ways of bypassing it, but one could find ways of bypassing any nanny program.

personally i'd like to be able to use dnd from bookmarks or pages and stuff.

Considering the ease of this little feature, I'd think you could at least assign it a static target milestone, like 1.1 or 1.2? The first paragraph would take only one dialog box and a few changes to the image-blocking engine. The second ([im/ex]porting) would be even easier. And while this feature probably hasn't been well-requested, I'm sure it will be well-received. > personally i'd like to be able to use dnd from bookmarks or pages and stuff. What does that have to do with anything??

if it's easy, would you like to try to implement it? what does my request have to do w/ yours? it's the way i'd like to add/import image URLs/servers to Image Permissions. Why should i have to type out a long url?

> if it's easy, would you like to try to implement it? I wish I was as good with C as I am with Perl :) And yes, I appreciate what you coders do for my browser. > what does my request have to do w/ yours? it's the way i'd like to add/import > image URLs/servers to Image Permissions. Why should i have to type out a long > url? Actually, I'm talking about a better filtering system and, I guess at the same time, a way to import this filtering system. I hate having to setup which ads servers to block every time I'm at a new computer, and I'm sure others would like to share filter files (so that one could set up a global filter file for everybody to use). If you want, I could give you an attachment of the Junkbuster file that I'm talking about, to give you a feel for what I'm talking about.

Add my vote for this capability. In addition, it would be helpful to be able to change the "can load"/"cannot load" state of an entry from the dialog (a handy feature in Konqueror) instead of having to remove the entry and wait for the nag to pop up again.

*** Bug 139596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

im not sure if this is a different issue, and should have a seperate bug, but i would like to be able to block macromedia flash files (.swf) from displaying as well as the usual image files. opinions on wether anyone agrees, this needs its own bug or if it is already possible would be appriciated.

*** Bug 146102 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 120510 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Bug 33467 covers manual entry. I'm restricting this bug to import/export.

the cookperm.txt file in the profile contains the domains for which images are blocked (next to the cookies and popup lists) This file is plain-text. You can just download a file someone else made, and append it to cookperm.txt. (make sure to not run mozilla at the time) So there is a poor mans export/import possible. I think that will be enough for now.

Wontfix; a solution is available.

Interesting. A user interface would be nice (the file was actually kinda hard to find), but this will work for now. Anybody working on a mega-ad-block file to import? Everybody interested in this bug should now voice their support for bug 78104 so that we can use ads.*, instead of listing the many, many ad servers. A built-in Junkbuster isn't that far off!

It actually might not be too difficult to implement a filtering layer similar to Junkbuster. My current solution is an external proxy server. A complete system like that is certainly worth looking into in the long run.

Answered my own question about the import file: http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/archives/ad_blocking.html http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/misc/cookperm.txt Forgive my laziness... > It actually might not be too difficult to implement a filtering layer similar to > Junkbuster. My current solution is an external proxy server. A complete system > like that is certainly worth looking into in the long run. Well, we already have a "filtering layer" in the form of the current image blocker, but the main issue is Junkbuster's ability to specify regular expressions, instead of all of those ad servers.

I really don't think that regular expressions would be too difficult. I might look into that a little later. Do you think it would be best to go with POSIX or with Perl-compatible expressions?

Again, this would probably be better discussed on bug 78104. There's a patch already there, but it just needs some tweaking. BTW, what's the difference between Perl/POSIX reg exps?

Perl-compatible expressions are generally considered more powerful than POSIX expressions. They add a few escaped sequences and a little more complexity/flexibility. For the same reason, they are a little harder to use and to code.

About #13. For blocking ads I use this userContent.css (write it on your Mozilla/Firebird Profile directory intro chrome folder). ---------------------- Cut -------------------------- /* Hide Banner Ads */ *[src*="ads."], *[src*=".ad?"], *[src*="/ad/"], *[src*="/ads/"], *[src*="adserver."], *[src*="banner"], *[src*="doubleclick"], *[src*="tradedoubler"], *[src*="advertising"], *[href*="adserver"], img[width="468"][height="60"], img[width="468px"][height="60px"], embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"][width="468"][height="60"], *[src*="advertising"] { display: none; visibility: hidden; } ---------------------- Cut -------------------------- With this code Mozilla/Firebird doesn't show the element, but if it is a graphic or a object (flash, ...) it downloads it. A file userDeny.css for don't download it would be terrific ;-)