Re: Why no "Banner Ad Eaters"?
Tim May wrote:
Yeah, I'm surprised that "banner ad eaters" have not been widely deployed. (If they're available, I haven't about them.) Something to remove the annoying banners, or stop them from wasting valuable time loading in the first place.
Tim, I'm surprised. WebFree for the Macintosh does this very thing. It matches on URL substrings and simply removes these things wholesale from your browser window. No broken image boxes, nothing. It also kills cookies and stops animated GIFs from leaking through, if you want to nuke either of those things. The URL is: http://www.falken.net/webfree/ Junkbusters (http://www.junkbusters.com/) offers a personal proxy server kind of thing that lets you mash just about everything: HTTP headers, user agent info, referer URL, cookies, etc. It runs on either NT or Unix variants. One could also use it to get around a firewall configured to reject non-standard browsers, but That Would Be Wrong, as Nixon once said. It lets you specify which sites or substrings to look for, and which ones you trust. It also does proxy chaining. Ratbert ratbert at nym dot alias dot net
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
Tim, I'm surprised. WebFree for the Macintosh does this very thing. It matches on URL substrings and simply removes these things wholesale from your browser window. No broken image boxes, nothing. It also kills cookies and stops animated GIFs from leaking through, if you want to nuke either of those things.
Of course, the person putting up the web page might well argue that you're violating his copyright in some bizarre way. The image on your screen with the ad banners stripped is not what the author intended; especially if you're helping third parties to strip ads. IANAL... thoughts? I occasinally use the Altavista search engine in text mode (www.altavista.digital.com) and it has ads (for amazon.com) right in the middle of the text, in the same html file as the search results. I suppose the next logical step in the anti-ad proxy is to edit the dynamically edit the incoming html and to delete or replaces specified strings; perhaps a while "intelligent agent" that will filter in only the information you've requested, keeping out *all* the graphics and other crud. While I was researching this subject, I came across a web page of some student at Rutgers. It displays 4 advertizing banners and uses java/javascript (obnoxious technologies that I disable) to make sure that you've clicked all 4 (presumably he gets some credit for it); only after the javascript is convinced that you've clicked the ad banners can you get in. Yeah, right. But if ad filtering becomes more commonplace in the future, i can imagine crypto being (mis)used to enforce ad viewing: "You no clicky my sponsor ads, you no see my content." I disagree with whoever said that the technology for deleting ads is the same as the technology for deleting porn. Porn publishers very much don't want their content to reach minors or anyone who's offended by it, and mostly coopereate with rating agencies. Porn isn't generally mixed with desirable content on the same pages. You can just block the entire page containing some porn (or, with vancouver-webpages' pics ratings you can block pages containing "disparaging remarks about the environment", kewl). Advertisers don't give a damn if their ads are seen by those who aren't interested in them, and will use technology to make it harder for you to filter out their ads (or to get to the content without seeing sponsor ads). When MS IE 3.0 first came out, it supported pics ratings. So I got very excited and wrote my own little pics ratings server (a better ones is available from wc3, by the way) to filter out banner ads. Unfortunately, after I wrote it and started testing t, I doscovered that IE 3.0 only asks the pics server about eh top-level page; it does NOT ask the pics server about the urls references in "IMG SRC=" and the like. I guess the reasoning is that if the top-level page is acceptable, than anything embedded on it is acceptable, which may be true about porn but not true about ads. Overall, this whole advertiser-sponsored model sucks. I'd rather be paying (electronic cash, of course) for the resources I use.
The URL is: http://www.falken.net/webfree/
Junkbusters (http://www.junkbusters.com/) offers a personal proxy server kind of thing that lets you mash just about everything: HTTP headers, user agent info, referer URL, cookies, etc. It runs on either NT or Unix variants.
It runs udner OS/2 too!! I've got it to work under NT. it may work under Win95 as well. (Anyone wants an executable for M$ platforms?)
One could also use it to get around a firewall configured to reject non-standard browsers, but That Would Be Wrong, as Nixon once said. It lets you specify which sites or substrings to look for, and which ones you trust.
I've been using junkbstr and am pretty happy with it. One disadvantage of using any proxy server, as opposed to filtering in the browser, is that the browse is one step removed from the TCP/IP. E.g. if you try to connect to a non-existent domain without a proxy, the browser goes to DNS and tells you that it can't resolve it. Going via a proxy, the proxy server goes to DNS and sends a page back to the browser sayng it couldn't resolve it, which isn't as clean. Although I'm not doing it much, the following worked out fine for me: junkbuster running on an NT box connected to the internet via ppp; browsers running on 4 win95 boxes connected to the NT box via ethernet, using the NT box as the proxy server. I've exchanged e-mail with someone about the list of URL patterns to block... I have no time for this myself, but someone ought to put up a web page tracking what ad urls people block. That would be a nice public service.
It also does proxy chaining.
It would be nice to have it chain automatically through more than one proxy. Another nice little feature of junkbstr is it ability to send "wafers" - your own cookies, which will hopefully confuse whatever tracking software exists on the server. I send noise with the following wafers: NOTICE=Please send no cookies AnonTrack=X Apache=X ASPSESSIONID=X CFID=X CFTOKEN=X DOL=X DTRACK=X EGSOFT_ID=X GeoId=X GeoStitial=X group_discount_cookie=T GTUID=00.00000.0.0.0000.0000 ink=X JEB2=X MC1=ID=X p_uniqid=X PFUID=X registered=YES RMID=X s_uniqid=X session-id-time=X session-id=X SWID=X UID=X Urid=X userid=X --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
ratbert at nym dot alias dot net wrote:
Junkbusters (http://www.junkbusters.com/) offers a personal proxy server kind of thing that lets you mash just about everything: HTTP headers, user agent info, referer URL, cookies, etc. It runs on either NT or Unix
Yep, I've got it running on www.myriad.ml.org:8000. It works great - the only site I've had problems with so far is nytimes (it tries to set a cookie when you log in as cypherpunks/cypherpunks)
ghio@temp0197.myriad.ml.org (Matthew Ghio) writes:
ratbert at nym dot alias dot net wrote:
Junkbusters (http://www.junkbusters.com/) offers a personal proxy server kind of thing that lets you mash just about everything: HTTP headers, user agent info, referer URL, cookies, etc. It runs on either NT or Unix
Yep, I've got it running on www.myriad.ml.org:8000. It works great - the only site I've had problems with so far is nytimes (it tries to set a cookie when you log in as cypherpunks/cypherpunks)
Junkbusters works very nicely for me. I highly recommend it. A warning about cookies: no proxy server I know can stop the server from trying to set the cookie by a) putting a <META HTTP-EQUIV="Cookie:" CONTENT="foo=bar;expires..."> in the header; b) if you have JavaScript enabled (not a good idea), running something like <SCRIPT SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript"><!-- document.cookie="foo=bar;expires=Sunday, 04-Jul-2010 00:00:00 GMT;path=/";//--></SCRIPT> You need to tell the browser to turn off the cookies even if you have an anti-cookie prixy server. Cookies and the NYTIMES subscription: NYTIMES.COM tries to store your userid and password in the cookie with keywords PW= and ID=. Problem is, it tries to encode them using 8-bit characters. Lucky for us, at this time NYTIMES.COM does not check if userid/password are valid, just that they're a part of the cookie!! So, just add these two lines to your junkbuster config: wafer PW=0 wafer ID=0 and nytimes.com will greet you as "0" and let you right in. Sure junkbuster feeds every wafer to every server, but I don't care. If you really want to send "cypherpunks", replace both 0s by the character representation of the hex string a1252e36392c2e2930332bdf. I'm not even trying to mail it verbatim because I know it would get mangled. Another site that uses weakly encrypted cookies is DEJANEWS.COM. For them, I've added these two lines to junkbuster config: wafer GTUID=03.35644.0.0.1145.00000 wafer DNUID=02717fb0f47d3544510927a15805ab3640987332e4ed6e58e78660744bc8320d260963691c27f34ef4b292e93258a7c7a6ea6b78200c6ade8f378833d6d5 This lets you post as cypherpunks@anonymous.crypto.conspirators.int and if and when dejanews locks it out, drop me a line and I'll cook up another one. :-) (Warning: when you post to usenet via dejanews, it adds your ip address to the header; use a proxy.) Hang Chris Lewis by his empty scrotum (he has no balls, or we'd hang him by his balls)! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ghio＠temp0197.myriad.ml.org -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM