Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!

Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post

Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!

Postby Tom T. » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:50 am

Question: "How can I restrict a script to running only on its own site, and not elsewhere?" (Examples: Facebook, Twitter)
Question: "How can I allow certain scripts to run only at Sites X, Y, and Z, but nowhere else?"

Answers: ABE FAQ, particularly FAQ 8.10.

*Please* read that FAQ, and try it out, before posting on these topics.

Mistakes shouldn't cause any harm. If a page breaks because the rule is written incorrectly, just delete the rule, and perhaps try again.

This safety of ABE "# User-defined rules" is why Giorgio Maone wrote immediately afterward,
"Feel free to experiment here."

This should achieve your goal faster than awaiting an available Support Team member's response.

If you can't get it to work, or have further questions after reading the FAQ, then by all means, do post here.
Please be as specific as possible:

1) The site(s) involved
2) The scripts involved
3) What you want to do (allow this here, but not there, etc.)
4) What you've tried, and what happened.

This also makes for a quicker response, and saves many back-and-forth exchanges.

Thank you,
Tom T.
on behalf of Giorgio Maone and the entire Support Team. (All four of us. ;))

******************************************************

P. S.: Giorgio has been working fervently to bring NoScript version 3.0 to the desktop. It's already a reality for mobile users, and the linked article will give you some idea of what to expect.

The most important for our purpose here:
"Site-specific permissions", of the type discussed in this post, will be an integral part of the new NoScript GUI, and will not require users to write custom rules, in ABE or anywhere else.

It was hoped to deliver this in late 2011, but bad people keep inventing new threats requring NoScript's protection; Firefox puts out new versions every month or two, etc. So the more we can do for ourselves, the sooner Giorgio can deliver the next-generation NoScript. If ABE isn't for you, please be patient until then. Thank you again.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:37 am

Bump to maintain visibility, pending review by the team and approve/deny stickiness by Giorgio.

Unlocking for *the following purpose only, please*:

Do Forum users support this as a sticky thread? (Why/why not?)
Is it useful? (ditto)

All feedback is appreciated.

Please place any actual discussion of site-specific permissions in an appropriate topic, not this one, thanks.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby ori999 » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:26 pm

I think it's very useful. I vote for sticky.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1
ori999
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:28 am

ori999 wrote:I think it's very useful. I vote for sticky.

Thank you.

Any others care to support (or oppose) this?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby dhouwn » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:57 pm

yea!

"yea!" to support, "nay!" to oppose.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0
dhouwn
Bug Buster
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby DJ-Leith » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:15 pm

yea! I vote for sticky too.

Comment: I have now read hundreds, possibly more than 1,000, of Tom T.'s posts.
I find they are very useful - always clear. I tend to agree with Tom T. more
than 95% of the time! Thanks for all you contribute.

DJ-Leith
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
DJ-Leith
Senior Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom.de » Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:08 am

I vote for sticky.

But some (at least one) of the other sticky should be dropped. To keep the overview rather clear.

(Getting OT now:
If you are from the support team, why don't you have moderation rights? This is ridiculous, IMHO)

DJ-Leith wrote:Comment: I have now read hundreds, possibly more than 1,000, of Tom T.'s posts.
I find they are very useful - always clear. I tend to agree with Tom T. more
than 95% of the time! Thanks for all you contribute.
Full ACK

Tom
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom.de
 

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:30 am

Tom.de wrote:I vote for sticky.

But some (at least one) of the other sticky should be dropped. To keep the overview rather clear.

Thank you for the input.

We find that many users go to only one sub-forum, and may miss topics posted as stickies in others, even those in the main Board Index.

For example, the Forum Rules are at the top of *every* sub-forum, including this one. Yet many posts indicate that the user hasn't read them.
(Specifically, searching the FAQ and this site before posting. Therefore, the same question gets asked hundreds of times. This topic is one of them.)

The idea was to make it as easy as possible to find, and more visible to users regardless of in which NS forum they choose to post.

Or did you mean, drop some other sticky on a different topic? Which one(s)? Sorry for my denseness.
Tom.de wrote:(Getting OT now:
If you are from the support team, why don't you have moderation rights? This is ridiculous, IMHO)

I have moderation rights. I can edit or delete posts, split or merge topics, ban spammers or other violators, etc.
The Administrator (Giorgio) has reserved the power of making posts sticky for Admin only. That is his decision, and of course I respect it.
Tom.de wrote:
DJ-Leith wrote:Comment: I have now read hundreds, possibly more than 1,000, of Tom T.'s posts.
I find they are very useful - always clear. I tend to agree with Tom T. more
than 95% of the time! Thanks for all you contribute.
Full ACK

Sorry, I don't know what ACK means. Acknowledge, or like "Yuk!" -- a term of disgust? :?

(I'd go with the meaning from TCP SYN/ACK, but out of humility, had best check first. :D )

@ DJ-Leith, and @ Tom.de, if ACK is intended in the TCP sense:

Thank you for the kind words. They're very much appreciated, and encourage the continued donation of time and effort to this most worthwhile forum. :)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom.de » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:44 pm

Tom T. wrote:
Tom.de wrote:But some (at least one) of the other sticky should be dropped. To keep the overview rather clear.

Or did you mean, drop some other sticky on a different topic? Which one(s)? Sorry for my denseness.
Yes, I ment another Sticky. For example "NoScript Icon disappears in Firefox 4" could be un-sticked, since Fx 4 is rather old now and there is also another sticky about missing icons and other stuff.

Tom T. wrote:Sorry, I don't know what ACK means. Acknowledge, or like "Yuk!" -- a term of disgust? :?
No, ACK is short for Acknowledge, but I just saw, that this abbreviation is not so common in english, as it is in german (chats/forums etc.).

Tom T. wrote:Thank you for the kind words. They're very much appreciated, and encourage the continued donation of time and effort to this most worthwhile forum. :)
I rather hope so ;), what would we (helping seeking ppl) do otherwise??? :)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom.de
 

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:50 am

Tom.de wrote:
Tom T. wrote:
Tom.de wrote:But some (at least one) of the other sticky should be dropped. To keep the overview rather clear.

Or did you mean, drop some other sticky on a different topic? Which one(s)? Sorry for my denseness.
Yes, I ment another Sticky. For example "NoScript Icon disappears in Firefox 4" could be un-sticked, since Fx 4 is rather old now

Agree.

I have asked Giorgio to remove the F4 sticky, and also to remove from NoScript General a sticky about a bug that was fixed many months ago.
Tom.de wrote: and there is also another sticky about missing icons and other stuff.

I believe you are referring to General Troubleshooting Instructions?

That post is definitely valid, and it too would help many users to diagnose their own problems without having to wait for an available support person.
Tom.de wrote:
Tom T. wrote:Sorry, I don't know what ACK means. Acknowledge, or like "Yuk!" -- a term of disgust? :?
No, ACK is short for Acknowledge, but I just saw, that this abbreviation is not so common in english, as it is in german (chats/forums etc.).

Correct. I have not seen it in English-language chat or forums. That doesn't mean it's not used, but probably not commonly. Thanks for clarifying.
(And for agreeing with the kind words. :) )

Tom.de wrote:
Tom T. wrote:Thank you for the kind words. They're very much appreciated, and encourage the continued donation of time and effort to this most worthwhile forum. :)
I rather hope so ;), what would we (helping seeking ppl) do otherwise??? :)

Wait for another Moderator, I guess? ;) -- Kidding!

It is not easy to make a living in the present US economy, whose Government lacks the fiscal prudence of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ;) but as I have told Giorgio privately, I can never repay him, in money or time, for the priceless gift of NoScript, without which the Internet is so unsafe as to be almost unusable.
But will keep trying, as often and as long as able. 8-)

Cheers,
- Tom.tt Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:50 am

bump, pending stickiness decision by Admin, after this topic was indeed stickied in NS Development.

Seems to be strong support here in NS Support for this sticky. Further comments welcome pending final decision.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:19 am

Tom T. wrote:bump, pending stickiness decision by Admin, after this topic was indeed stickied in NS Development.

Seems to be strong support here in NS Support for this sticky. Further comments welcome pending final decision.

ditto.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.25) Gecko/20111212 Firefox/3.6.25
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:12 am

bump.

To sticky, or not to sticky, that is the question...
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Firefox/3.6.27
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Sophira » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:02 am

As a user who went to the forum to ask this question, saw this thread, and had her question answered immediately because of it, I say - please do sticky this! In fact I thought it was already stickied because it was so close to the top. But this really does need formal stickying, I think. :D
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0.2
Sophira
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:00 am

Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR

Postby Tom T. » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:39 am

Sophira wrote:As a user who went to the forum to ask this question, saw this thread, and had her question answered immediately because of it, I say - please do sticky this! In fact I thought it was already stickied because it was so close to the top. But this really does need formal stickying, I think. :D

Thanks, Sophira. In fact, since the "bump" request of 2 March 2012, Giorgio did in fact sticky this -- at the very top of the list.

If not stickied, it would long since have been bumped down the list.

Thanks also for the feedback. The fact that it answered your question immediately, without you having to post and await a reply, means that it's doing its job: Faster service for users; support team can get to other issues more quickly.

Thanks again.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Firefox/3.6.28
Tom T.
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Next

Return to NoScript Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests

cron