InformAction Forums

Some of my time is spent helping a variety of other computer users, and I've bookmarked a number of webpages to this end. One of these pages is http://backgroundchecks.org/justdeleteme/. I'm confounded by my continual need to Allow this site in NoScript. My questions are:

1. Why must I continually Allow this site? I thought one instruction to Allow any site would be sufficient.

2. Aside from #1, I thought that bookmarked sites would always be Allowed anyway. Why not here?

Can't reproduce it here. Allowing the site once is enough.

After allowing the site, can you send a screenshot of your whitelist (Options-Whitelist), showing the entry for this site?

Here's the visible portion of the whitelist. As you can see, justdelete.me is whitelisted. I hope that will be sufficient.

(I would have answered earlier, but I didn't see your post until now.)

intellicast.com
japanfair.org
jccsc.com
jkiltd.com
jquery.com
juliennetogo.com
justanswer.com
justdelete.me
jwpcdn.com
jwpsrv.com
kcet.org

The URL in your OP is to a page on the site "backgroundchecks.org". In your reply to Thrawn, you wrote that "justdelete.me", a different domain, is whitelisted correctly.

You sure you ever whitelisted backgroundchecks.org?

BTW, are any of the sites in question listed in italic in your whitelist?

Why must I continually Allow this site?

What does that mean, continually Allow?
You open the page, Allow.
Close the page [not the browser].
Open the page again, & have to Allow again?
Or ... ?

I thought that bookmarked sites would always be Allowed anyway.

I think there is an option for that, but it is not defaulted.
Right. Options | General -> Allow sites opened through bookmarks.

Thanks, all.

1. You may be right, therube; bookmarked sites may not be Allowed by default. However, that option has been checked in my configuration.

2. Therube, I don't exactly know the answer to your "What does that mean" question. Perhaps the "Allow" instruction is reversed upon restarting the browser. I tend to keep my browser open constantly.

3. Barbaz, I Allow the page by executing a keyboard shortcut that removes all red from the NoScript icon. My understanding has been that this Allows the page regardless of the domain. Is that not correct?

4. Barbaz, I see that backgroundchecks.org is indeed listed and italicized. Perhaps you can tell me what that means.

Odin99 wrote:3. Barbaz, I Allow the page by executing a keyboard shortcut that removes all red from the NoScript icon. My understanding has been that this Allows the page regardless of the domain. Is that not correct?

I don't allow stuff by keyboard shortcuts, so not sure. Also, there are two keyboard shortcuts that might fit that description, so let's find out which one you're using.

Please go to about:config and search for "noscript.keys". One of those entries will have the keyboard shortcut you use. Right-click that entry > Copy name, then paste here.

Odin99 wrote:4. Barbaz, I see that backgroundchecks.org is indeed listed and italicized. Perhaps you can tell me what that means.

That means it is Temporarily allowed. It was never "really" whitelisted. Thus, you would need to continually reiterate that you want script running.

Remove that entry, then Allow backgroundchecks.org with the NoScript menu, should fix it.

Thanks again, Barbaz.

1. The shortcut name is noscript.keys.toggle. The value is ctrl shift VK_BACK_SLASH.|. (I've changed that using another program.) I'm not sure why you wanted that information, but here it is.

2. I've followed your suggestion and have used the NoScript menu to Allow backgroundchecks.org, which now appears unitalicized in the whitelist. That seems to resolve my original inquiry.

3. I'm still perplexed about why the page was not correctly whitelisted before. The shortcut I used turned the NoScript icon to completely clear. According to the drop-down at that icon, when it's completely clear [no little clock partly obscuring it], the page is supposed to be permanently allowed. Why was that not the case here?

Odin99 wrote:1. The shortcut name is noscript.keys.toggle. The value is ctrl shift VK_BACK_SLASH.|. (I've changed that using another program.) I'm not sure why you wanted that information, but here it is.

So that I could check for myself what's going on.

That "noscript.keys.toggle" keystroke toggles the top-level site between "Temporarily allowed" and "Forbidden".

Odin99 wrote:2. I've followed your suggestion and have used the NoScript menu to Allow backgroundchecks.org, which now appears unitalicized in the whitelist. That seems to resolve my original inquiry.

Glad to help.

Odin99 wrote:3. I'm still perplexed about why the page was not correctly whitelisted before. The shortcut I used turned the NoScript icon to completely clear. According to the drop-down at that icon, when it's completely clear [no little clock partly obscuring it], the page is supposed to be permanently allowed. Why was that not the case here?

The NoScript toolbar icon doesn't care temporary vs permanent permissions. FAQ 1.13 explains the meaning of the icon states.

Barbaz, FAQ 1.13 seems inconsistent with the icon's drop-down. FAQ 1.13 doesn't even consider the icon partly obscured by the little clock. Moreover, the drop-down clearly states that the unobscured icon reflects making "page permissions permanent." Are the drop-down explanations simply wrong? If so, what steps might I take to suggest correcting them? And is there no quick way to permanently Allow a page?

Oh, you mean the menu icons, sorry. Those are not really related to the toolbar icon. They don't tell you the current state of the page.

If anything, they show what WILL happen when that menu item is clicked. But even that explanation is an approximation.

Barbaz, please forgive me but I don't understand your reply. I'm talking only about the toolbar icon and the drop-down next to it, which is obviously intended to explain the various ways in which that icon appears. Is there a different "menu icon"?

Where I wrote "menu", please read "drop-down".

So you seem to be saying that the drop-down menu is not accurate. If that's so, how might I best suggest a correction? Should I email Giorgio? Or what would you advise?

It *is* accurate, but it is not intended to tell you the current state of scripts on the page.

As for emailing Giorgio, I suggest you hold off on that for now. I think NoScript 3.x will have an interface you will find less confusing. See the screenshot of the mobile version - https://noscript.net/nsa/

EDIT
BTW, you're not the only one who got confused by that - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21460