At 6:47 AM -0400 on 4/26/07, Robert D. wrote: >I happened upon this otherwise innocuous site >http://www.nysun.com/article/53288
Robert, will you please file a bug on that site in Bugzilla (against the Annoyance Blocking component in Camino)? >Was wondering the extent to which we will be blocking annoying ads on >web sites. Easily-blockable ads that don't break much on major sites is the general criteria; some ads we don't manage to block, and some rules sometimes break things (we sometimes back such rules out, depending on the site, the extent of breakage, and ads the rule blocks). We don't claim to block everything, but we are always working to improve what we do (and don't) block. We update ad-blocking about once a month in nightly builds, and take well-tested ad-blocking updates in security releases (i.e., 1.0.x releases). >I write because I see the tickmark for blocking adverts and wonder _if_ > there is an adjustment that we users can make to it vis-a-vis additions? Philippe has already mentioned one method (not controlled by the prefs check box), the userContent.css. Another method is blocking specific hosts, or images from said hosts; see <http://www.caminobrowser.org/support/docs/annoyances/#hostperm> Both of these are "on if present" and can't be disabled or edited within a browsing session, and can break things if you're not careful. We do have a bug for a more AdBlock-like way to block ads <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=314046>, but it's not a priority right now. Smokey -- Smokey Ardisson Co-Lead Triage/QA and Website & Documentation The Camino Project _______________________________________________ Camino mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/camino
