LearningGuest wrote:
-Default is not Default blocked. I saw that Pansa had responded to a couple of these issues already, that it was the earlier version bug, but I am still having trouble with it. For example, sports.yahoo.com automatically allow all scripts (all sites are doing this for me)- I must manually go line item in the drop down to set it as Untrusted. Again, perhaps I have the earlier bug issue version somehow still (despite it being listed in the dropdown menu as 10.1.2). Must all tracker/domains be line item blocked from now on? (I saw barbaz mentioning the 4 step fix in the earlier part of this thread, but again, this seems like a severe headache to do each and every time) Compounding the issue- in the options menu, since the Default option is not working, it remembers the manual setting of Untrusted and keeps it for all the blocked domains, creating a long list of domain names to manage, whereas the earlier list only needed to remember trusted sites.
default is a group setting.
Just remove all check-marks from any one default, it means that THE default rules have changed.
They shouldn't have been set in the first place, but just remove them.
The bug was that if you tried to create a custom rule -> changes to default. That is fixed.
-Red/Green lock- is this the default UI setup going forward? I understand green lock mechanism is for https vs http- and that some sites do both and leaving it red lock allows it to have both go thru and that green lock means ONLY https go thru, correct? I assume the duplicate domains that show up in the dropdown list are listing one https and one http- when I go to set both as untrusted manually, refresh, one maintains the untrusted icon, while the other reverts to "default" blocked, but as I've noted earlier, I'm unsure of what that means now and whether it actually IS blocked. Or is it just a matter of https vs http? For example, some sites I visit have 2 google.com domain listings, but if I untrust both, only one is listed as untrusted while the other returns to default. Then, I went to try and allow both, clicking and toggling the lock icon on one, and that one disappeared, and reloading the page didn't allow it to reappear. hopefully that isn't as confusing to read and understand as it was when it happened =D
green: https only ; red : both http AND https.
If you try to make a green lock rule and come back to default, make it a redlock rule and you are fine.
It's pretty basic: you create a rule, and when you reload it checks whether there IS a rule. If you made a https rule for a http script, it doesn't find a rule for http -> default.
-Overall domain script affecting other scripts on the page- perhaps related to the red/green lock question, and maybe it's just a matter of the website. Before, when blocking the initial overall address for a website, it affected many, if not all the other domain/scripts running on the page, blocking them from loading, but this version does not do that automatically for all sites (some do, some do not, and perhaps again, this is maybe a site to site difference? for instance, amazon.com will block everything else from loading if the address itself is listed as untrusted, but other websites that used to do the same no longer do so)
That is an interesting way of putting it..
But that is still mostly the case (except for the lack of sub domains at the moment)
It still is the case that if you allow the mainpage and reload, tons of new domains pop in asking for further rules, basically because the first level script loads MORE scripts, and if you don't run the first level it doesn't even get to know that there IS a second level.
You may start with 2 addresses, allow one, and then there are 10. Was that way, is that way.
Look at the age of of the "why must I press temp allow all" sticky thread. That is exactly about having to temp allow, and then again temp allow to load second level, and again for third.
Yes, it's site depended, because it is a matter of nested loading of scripts.
-The allow options checkboxes under each domain- is there an faq or a site for what each checkbox means? For instance, I realized that facebook.com will only work in full if all are checked and allowed. But perhaps this is a bit above my understanding if it involves even basic js coding and technical info. If that is the case, in the event of trying to make a site work, should all be checked by default then?
Those are all new. If you go by basic "what was there before" logic, there is basically only "all" and "none"
But be careful with the phrasing, because NO you don't want to allow them in the "default" group. you want the default behaviour for sites without rules to be "load nothing" (see first part above)
When in doubt the same logic back from NS5 applies. "when in doubt, NO" until you miss something, in which case, why not make a "custom" rule for that domain alone and incrementally set the checkmarks.
How did you figure out in the old NS which scripts you need and which you don't? you try to go by name and try and error. Think you are missing a "window" or a video? probably "frame" and "media". Fetch is about sending data back.
But that is all "bonus potential" compared with NS5.
-The refresh button option- I am torn on this option- whereas the prior autorefresh for any changes made could be inconvenient since it reloaded ALL tabs and pages open where applicable, I do think this option also provides some level of beneficial fine tuning for users- not having to reload streaming videos, or not having to reenter text on forums or online forms seems like a positive. From what I could see, the change occurs across all the tabs open where it applies, but doesn't require a refresh of those other pages? Or am I incorrect? Will the autorefresh come back in some form?
Probably yes. It was in 10.1.1, and it still works for the "temp allow all" button.
Don't know why it doesn't work currently, but it's been a week, and there are more important bugs still in there.
The issue of not understanding that a page is http and a https-only rule doesn't trigger will go away when the addon checks whether "https only" even makes sense.
And a lot of other issues will be fixed as well.
just for the moment, if you are still confused, just scroll through the debug log in the options menu.
If graphic interfaces are not your thing, the log contains the same (editable) full rule set in text form.
And it bears repeating: Even if the "default" is "block all"... If you move a page to untrusted, the same "greenlock/redlock" system applies, even though it should not. There is no locks to toggle in "untrusted" because you should never block JUST https. And blocking JUST http is achieved by allowing https alone. But currently if you JUST "untrust" it only creates a "block https only" rule. Switch to "trusted" or "custom", set the red lock, and THEN untrust. this way a "block both" rule is enforced.
)