| reply to Zhen-Xjell
Re: JUNKBUSTER REVIEW As Z-X said, IJB does not block popups, javascripts, etc. It's a plain simple proxy, and it can be thought as an exact alternative to HOST file method.
The reason IJB does not have more "features" such as eliminating popups is, as IJB homepage says, they think alternation of web pages could mean copyright violation (We know that blocking popups, javascripts through proxies actually means modifying HTML source on the fly.).
The following from IJB FAQ page: quote:
Why not replace blocked banners with something invisible?
Many users have suggested to us that blocked banners should be replaced by a something like a 1x1 transparent GIF to make the page would look as if there was nothing ever there. Apart from making it harder to catch unintended blocking, this might also displease the owners of the page, who could argue that such a change constitutes a copyright infringement. We think that merely failing to allow an included graphic to be accessed would probably not be considered an infringement: after all this is what happens when a browser is configured not to load images automatically. However, we are not lawyers, so anyone in doubt should take appropriate advice.
You can see that these guys think even replacing blocked images with 'c:\clear.gif' could be copyright violation, not to mention filtering javascripts! Too extreme I think, but that's where IJB guys stand, and ask the users to do whatever they want.
I use IJB on Linux / Solaris, and the main reason for the choice is there isn't any viable alternative.... yet  .
[Edit:]
I forgot to say thanks to Z-X for continuing hard work for all of us. Thanks!
-- wiregauze
[text was edited by author 2001-06-16 22:19:25] |
