InformAction Forums

Hi everybody. This is a message I've made for the developer of this excellent tool.
I don't write for complaining. I was only guessing about these features that I'd like noscript have :

- Remove Youtube spam / announces embeded in video player
- When I disconnect from my gmail account ( with a ultra-high level of blocking, all options of noscript activated ), my Google Account Username remains when I go to Google Search or Google News in the right up corner of the webpage, and I don't like it ( considering that I'm looking for extra private browsing ), even knowing that I've closed session previously. So I'd like noscript to fix that problem.
- I think there's a way to improve the function ''allow...(item or entire page) temporarily''. Because when I enter in a webpage that have a lot of contents that noscript may block because of my policy and behaviour settings, I have to click again and again in ''allow...temporally'' untill the complete web page or functions that I have to load or display appear correctly. I don't know if I have explained correctly. I only want to click on ''allow temporarily'' one time and let all the scripts in the webpage to load, instead of multiple clicks again and again.
- There are a few ads that noscript don't block, like embed gmail ones. And I don't want to still using Adblock plus or something similar. I'd like Noscript for having that features.
Despite of these things, this is definitely the best addon I have ever find for firefox. As I said, I don't write for complaining, and I'm not saying that these requests are easy to solve.

offshorepin wrote:- Remove Youtube spam / announces embeded in video player

If it's part of the video itself, that may not be possible. However, there was a thread, "Starting video at a certain point." A quick search of the Forum should find it.

offshorepin wrote:- When I disconnect from my gmail account ( with a ultra-high level of blocking, all options of noscript activated ), my Google Account Username remains when I go to Google Search or Google News in the right up corner of the webpage, and I don't like it ( considering that I'm looking for extra private browsing ), even knowing that I've closed session previously. So I'd like noscript to fix that problem.

"Google" and "extra-private browsing" are oxymoronic (self-contradictory). That's a whole book in itself -- lawsuits by the EU alleging violation of data-privacy laws, and many, many more. Search the web for this topic. And to search, my personal choice is https://ssl.scroogle.org. No cookies, ads, tracking, data retention, but all the search results of Google -- with their IP attached to it, not yours.

offshorepin wrote:- I think there's a way to improve the function ''allow...(item or entire page) temporarily''. Because when I enter in a webpage that have a lot of contents that noscript may block because of my policy and behaviour settings, I have to click again and again in ''allow...temporally'' untill the complete web page or functions that I have to load or display appear correctly. I don't know if I have explained correctly. I only want to click on ''allow temporarily'' one time and let all the scripts in the webpage to load, instead of multiple clicks again and again.

Also already dealt with. Forum Rules #1 asks users to search the FAQ and this forum before posting. I think I can find this one quickly for you.

Here, especially my detailed explanation.

offshorepin wrote:- There are a few ads that noscript don't block, like embed gmail ones. And I don't want to still using Adblock plus or something similar. I'd like Noscript for having that features.

NoScript is not an ad-blocker, and was never intended to be. Its focus is on security, not mere annoyance.

I don't use ABP either, and never see ads. Some ideas to consider:

RequestPolicy add-on

A blocking HOSTS file, like the one provided at http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm. I have no connection to that site, and am not responsible for it or for your use of it, but I've been satisfied with it for some years now. Note that not everyone agrees with using the Windows Hosts file in this way. I haven't had any problem. IMHO. YMMV.

You can also use Fx's built-in image blocker. For example, I use Yahoo Mail. I need to allow *scripts* from yimg.com, but in Firefox Tools > Options > Content > Load Images Automatically, I have yimg.com blocked. Then, the functions provided by the scripting work, but not what are (to me) distracting images. You can play around with this, and create your own custom block-list for whatever gets through RequestPolicy and Hosts.

Stuff embedded in a page may be hard to block without something like a GreaseMonkey script, a Firefox add-on that requires a fair amount of tech knowledge.

offshorepin wrote:Despite of these things, this is definitely the best addon I have ever find for firefox. As I said, I don't write for complaining, and I'm not saying that these requests are easy to solve.

Understood. And I am not complaining about the post -- we appreciate your interest and kind words -- only mentioning that many of these things have, in fact, been addressed already, here or in the FAQ and other resources.

Thank you.

Tom T. wrote:

offshorepin wrote:- There are a few ads that noscript don't block, like embed gmail ones. And I don't want to still using Adblock plus or something similar. I'd like Noscript for having that features.

NoScript is not an ad-blocker, and was never intended to be. Its focus is on security, not mere annoyance.

I don't use ABP either, and never see ads. Some ideas to consider:

Please elaborate. I still use ABP. After reading this, I'm wondering if I should get rid of it. It seems to work well and I rarely have to create an exception.

@ginahoy:
Keep ABP. Like you, I find that it does a terrific job. And it doesn't conflict with NoScript at all.

@ ginahoy and Alan Baxter:

If one looks over thousands of posts here, one finds many who love ABP, and many who find that it causes problems. Sometimes, NS "problems" posted here turn out to be ABP problems. GµårÐïåñ considers it a memory-hogging, easily-defeated waste. So, each to their own opinion.

ginahoy wrote:

Tom T. wrote:

offshorepin wrote:- There are a few ads that noscript don't block, like embed gmail ones. And I don't want to still using Adblock plus or something similar. I'd like Noscript for having that features.

NoScript is not an ad-blocker, and was never intended to be. Its focus is on security, not mere annoyance.

I don't use ABP either, and never see ads. Some ideas to consider:

Please elaborate. I still use ABP. After reading this, I'm wondering if I should get rid of it. It seems to work well and I rarely have to create an exception.

I thought I did elaborate?

Tom T. wrote:RequestPolicy add-on

A blocking HOSTS file, like the one provided at http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm. I have no connection to that site, and am not responsible for it or for your use of it, but I've been satisfied with it for some years now. Note that not everyone agrees with using the Windows Hosts file in this way. I haven't had any problem. IMHO. YMMV.

You can also use Fx's built-in image blocker. For example, I use Yahoo Mail. I need to allow *scripts* from yimg.com, but in Firefox Tools > Options > Content > Load Images Automatically, I have yimg.com blocked. Then, the functions provided by the scripting work, but not what are (to me) distracting images. You can play around with this, and create your own custom block-list for whatever gets through RequestPolicy and Hosts.

With these methods, I never see ads, and have no need for ABP. But if you like it, and it causes you no problems, then as Alan said, keep it.

Or did you mean, elaborate on why I don't have it?

In a nutshell, because I don't need it.

I personally am a minimalist, following the Principle of Least Privilege, Occam's Razor, and other security and economy principles that date back fifty years or more:

The less code and the less complexity, the less is the chance for problems. 400 MB Adobe Reader will have 100x as many opportunities for flaws as 4 MB Foxit Reader. And the security advisories for both prove this to be true.

But then again, my entire WINDOWS folder is only 178 MB, and the entire HD usage is about 900 MB, apps and all. IMHO. YMMV.

Tom, thanks for clarifying. I don't read this forum and simply had no idea what reasons there might be for not using ABP. BTW, I also use Foxit, and would *never* consider installing Acrofat on my computer. I only have 19 processes running when browser and apps are closed. I already set up a hosts file (thanks to your previous reply), and I'm looking into RequestPolicy. The one thing I haven't done is explore ways to streamline FF.

ginahoy wrote:I only have 19 processes running when browser and apps are closed.

FWIW, if we're talking about shutting down firewall, AV, etc., I have 13, and four of them are instances of svchost.exe (required).

I already set up a hosts file (thanks to your previous reply), and I'm looking into RequestPolicy. The one thing I haven't done is explore ways to streamline FF.

If we're talking about the core Firefox program files or profile files, I've played a bit with them, and mostly it's not worth risking breaking something to save a relatively small amount of space. Many that I've tried deleting just come back at the next update anyway.

I *personally* (*personally*) figure that since I use the Hosts file, I don't need the 5MB urlclassifier SQL; after deletion, it will be rebuilt to a 32Kb file. I remove the searchplugins, because i just use a bookmark instead, but a lot of people like having the toolbar always visible. You can still choose one and delete the others.

Side note: My favorite for privacy, https://ssl.scroogle.org, seems to have been shut out of Google, effectively shutting them down. (Another famous "Do No Evil" from the Big G. Thanks, guys. ) I've been using https://duckduckgo.com, which seems to have a similar respect for users' privacy -- no cookies, scripting, tracking, ads, logs - not even of IP addresses. Still new to it, but so far, so good. And there is a Fx add-on to install it as a search plug-in. IMHO. YMMV.

Main economy is in keeping add-ons to what you really need and what you really use. That's going to vary for everyone.
My list:

For security and privacy:
NS, of course
RequestPolicy
Certificate Patrol
RefControl

For convenience:
Extended copy menu (copies anything off the Web in plain-text format, so you can paste it directly into anything without all the links, font sizes and colors, pix, etc.) Only 7K.

For doing support, and also for any techie who likes to peek under the hood:
JSView

I'm sure everyone has their own list of "must-haves", but when I hear of people with 50 or 100 add-ons, that just seems like asking for trouble -- conflicts, performance hits, more chances for flaws, etc.

Epilogue: I've heard, but not verified, that Wladimir Palant is intending to take ABP out of Firefox Add-ons altogether, and serve it only from his own site, which seems a bit hinky, to say the least. Does anyone know if this is true?