Search found 9 matches
- Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:28 am
- Forum: NoScript Support
- Topic: Blocking *all* JS on archived pages on the Wayback Machine?
- Replies: 3
- Views: 4583
Re: Blocking *all* JS on archived pages on the Wayback Machi
Thanks! I hadn't really realised that sandboxing was an option. It also turns out I wasn't fully understanding how the Wayback Machine did some things. I now have a much more comprehensive collection of rules that does exactly what I want (order is important!): Site ^https?://web\.archive\.org\/web\...
- Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:13 am
- Forum: NoScript Support
- Topic: Blocking *all* JS on archived pages on the Wayback Machine?
- Replies: 3
- Views: 4583
Blocking *all* JS on archived pages on the Wayback Machine?
Hi. :) I have a bit of a problem that I can't seem to solve completely with NoScript and ABE. I use the Internet Archive Wayback Machine quite extensively, as well as the Internet Archive in general. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine's main interface for selecting the archived pages/dates requires ...
- Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:28 pm
- Forum: ABE
- Topic: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with CDNs
- Replies: 6
- Views: 6151
Re: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with C
That, and the fact that pressing Cancel doesn't actually cancel your changes. When I pressed Ctrl+Z, my first instinct was not to press Ctrl+Y (which would have restored it) but to click Cancel. Unfortunately the changes still get saved when you do that.
- Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:48 am
- Forum: ABE
- Topic: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with CDNs
- Replies: 6
- Views: 6151
Re: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with C
Yep, the buggy behaviour still occurs in 2.6.7, as does the other buggy behaviour I mentioned that nearly lost me my ABE rules. How should I go about reporting these?
- Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:41 am
- Forum: ABE
- Topic: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with CDNs
- Replies: 6
- Views: 6151
Re: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with C
The first example works fine, thanks! After some experimentation, I found that this also works: Site o.aolcdn.com Accept from www.shoutcast.com s.aolcdn.com Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT) Site s.aolcdn.com Accept from www.shoutcast.com o.aolcdn.com Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT) I'm confused as to why that works an...
- Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:22 pm
- Forum: ABE
- Topic: Problem with allowing site-specific script access with CDNs
- Replies: 6
- Views: 6151
Problem with allowing site-specific script access with CDNs
I'm using NoScript's implementation of ABE in order to allow certain CDNs only from their relevant sites. To do this, I have rules such as these: Site o.aolcdn.com Accept from www.shoutcast.com Accept from s.aolcdn.com Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT) Site s.aolcdn.com Accept from www.shoutcast.com Accept fro...
- Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:00 pm
- Forum: Metaforum
- Topic: Discussion of Board post icons, split as O/T from elsewhere
- Replies: 13
- Views: 11968
Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR
You know, I never considered that all of the threads I was seeing might be stickies. For some reason I thought the little asterisk on the top-right of the thread icon indicated a sticky post, but it's actually the exclamation point in the icon. I've never seen so many stickies in a forum before! And...
- Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:04 pm
- Forum: Metaforum
- Topic: Discussion of Board post icons, split as O/T from elsewhere
- Replies: 13
- Views: 11968
Re: Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIR
Never mind - it may indeed have been stickied. I didn't realise that topics with unread replies will still show up above sticky topics, and I mistook the red symbol for meaning 'sticky' when it meant 'unread'. So it's quite possible it was sticky before now and I just never noticed. Sorry for the co...
- Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:33 am
- Forum: Metaforum
- Topic: Discussion of Board post icons, split as O/T from elsewhere
- Replies: 13
- Views: 11968
Discussion of Board post icons, split as O/T from elsewhere
(Split as O/T to sticky post, Site-Specific-Permission Questions? PLEASE READ THIS FIRST! -- Tom t.)
Hmm. It wasn't stickied when I saw it earlier today, actually - it was fourth in the list, not at the top, and didn't have the sticky symbol that it does now. Still, it's sticky now, so yay
Hmm. It wasn't stickied when I saw it earlier today, actually - it was fourth in the list, not at the top, and didn't have the sticky symbol that it does now. Still, it's sticky now, so yay