how-to block ads
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
1 edit | reply to bobince
Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
quote:
there seems to be little point in arguing with a company whose business by design relies on predatory behaviour.
"How can we get off your blacklist?"
"Well, just change your entire business model, ditch all your existing parasitic products and replace them with software people *want* to use. Or why not forget the software and become pig farmers instead?"
Going past the rest of the post to just this section, I think this would be so wrong a way to do business.
There is the assumption that the otherside is somehow not worth talking to. That any discussion would be an argument (when we can only control whether we ourselves argue).
There is the connotative term "predatory", and they could equally use the same term back on us -- and we could have hurt feelings all around, and still be no closer to a solution. After all, which side is it that wants to cause real injury to the other side? Clearly we want true malware makers and distributers to go out of business if they won't change their ways.
The other side knows that some people want their products, and we all know there is no product that everyone wants.
As for becoming pig farmers, I don't want to insult pig farmers or any kind of farmers, but there are a lot of people who belong in different fields (and this is perhaps most common in law enforcement, where certain sorts of people become obsessed with power and authority, hence the intensive personality tests most police departments give in an attempt to keep those sorts of people out, then they become security guards or whatever).
Correcting a few fine points in company policy, or dropping an unacceptable business partner does not necessitate changing lines of work.
If it did, we'd have no businesses period, of any type, because no business owner is immune to mistakes.
I assume the objective is to safeguard users and facilitate their safe and easy use of the Internet. I think we need to keep that end goal in mind. | |
jpeachman
join:2000-05-23
Pittsburg, CA
| reply to novaflare
said by novaflare  :
how about this a compramise.
The source/sources for mo money maker stay in ie spyadd by default but with your blessing ebates.cm adds a nice notice to iespyaddusers who wish to download mo money maker that they need to ither disable or uncheck/add this(these) url(s) to a exclude list to download and install mo money maker.
This way those who truely want to download mo money maker can do so and they will have the instructions on how to do so in plain english.
Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com? Or am I misreading your suggestion? If the notice is instead on Eric's site, they could read it (if they happened to notice it at the time), but would they remember it if they subsequently decided to use ebates?
Joe | |
sybille
Not only "just visiting"
Premium
join:2004-04-06
France
1 edit | reply to keith2468
said by keith2468 :
We should construct our software to accomodate users and their desire to access particular suspect sites, and still protect them against the other suspect sites they don't want.
Ad-aware, Spybot S&D, and Spamcop.net all allow me to easily ignore or whitelist what they consider to be hazards or hazardous sites.
IE-SPYAD does include a readme that gives users explicit instructions as to how to remove any sites the reg file blocks. Online version at »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt
Questions addressed in this readme, among others:
"One of the web sites that I normally visit isn't working right. How can I remove it from the Restricted sites zone?"
"How can I tell which entry is causing a problem with a web site?"
Maybe it is not as easy to read a readme as it is to click on a GUI or an "I accept the EULA" button, but it's more instructive. Once the user learns the principles, not only is it very easy to use IE-SPYAD but he or she is better equiped to use the internet responsibly.
pollux44
Who didn't know what IE zones were before using IE-SPYAD
(edit for clarity) | |
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
1 edit | reply to jpeachman
said by jpeachman :
said by novaflare :
how about this a compramise.
The source/sources for mo money maker stay in ie spyadd by default but with your blessing ebates.cm adds a nice notice to iespyaddusers who wish to download mo money maker that they need to ither disable or uncheck/add this(these) url(s) to a exclude list to download and install mo money maker.
This way those who truely want to download mo money maker can do so and they will have the instructions on how to do so in plain english.
Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com? Or am I misreading your suggestion? If the notice is instead on Eric's site, they could read it (if they happened to notice it at the time), but would they remember it if they subsequently decided to use ebates?
Joe
If im not mistaken ebates.com it self isnt blocked its the domains for mo money maker that are blocked. If ebates is blocked unblock it and block only the mo money domains.
posted to soon
ment to add
ive not used ie spyad my self
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com
my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php | |
CalamityJane
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-08-27
Eustis, FL
1 edit | reply to eburger68
said by eburger68 :
* When users look for guidance in a security forum such as this one, they are exercising individual responsibility, and for them to clean their computers they must have access to assistance from forum regulars who actually care helping them with their problems, not sneering at them or condemning them for being "dumb," "ignorant," and "lazy." (Just what was it you thought we did in this forum anyway? Give certain users privileged with knowledge an experience a platform from which to scorn and spit on the ignorant, unwashed masses?)
Amen, Eric!!
And I am among many of those helping those users, here and the other mentioned forums in addition! And you are doing the same with not only your users you help but with IESPYAD. My experience, and I'll bet it is yours, is that most folks, after such an episode, are anxious to have instructions and help on how to prevent future occurances.
IESPYAD is at the top of the list of recommended programs. Your diligence in researching all of those sites (My God! How do you do it???) is appreciated by all of us. The victims and the helpers. 
For most it is their first introduction to the need for PC security and the path to gaining greater knowledge on how to keep safe!!
[edit] spelling typo
--
It takes a disaster to make a woman out of a female
Gladiator Security Forum
Proud Member of ASAP (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals) »www.a-sap.org/ | |
CajunTek
Insane Cajun
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-08
Arlington, TX | reply to eburger68
My only comments here..
Well said CJ and Well done Eric..
--
Lost in Texas | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
4 edits | reply to keith2468
keith2468:
You wrote:
said by keith2468:
Who is being unfair now? Even witchhunters cared about the facts, but only certain facts. They were selective, unfair, didn't consider the alleged witch's viewpoint, and didn't listen to what the witch had to say, unless it could be interpreted as a confession.
Keith, we have seen a wide variety of facts posted in this thread. We've had critics of the program and the company as well as defenders. We've had people picking out particular facts where they find them as well as reporting their own experiences with the program, the company, and its services. Thus, your assertion that the "witch's viewpoint" hasn't been considered here is utterly baseless -- completely without merit, and utterly indifferent to what has actually transpired in this thread. In fact, earlier today I emailed Mr. Isolani and invited him to contribute to this thread.
If you'd care to contribute to this inquiry into ebates.com and its software and services, I'd be more than happy to consider what you have to offer. But to dismissively wave off what other people have posted already as a "witch hunt" doesn't do justice to the contributors or what they've offered.
said by keith2468:
The simple fact of the matter is that the posts by the folks I am labeling witchunters look so see what other anti-spyware products have labeled the suspect product as -- which is how a mob behaves. Individual examination is replaced by group-think. The person is guilty because a lot of people think they are guilty. That is pretty much the definition of mob mentality in this context.
Did you look carefully at the pages that people linked to? If you did, surely you would have noticed that those pages are chock full of information about the program and the company, all relevant information for us to consider here. That is not groupthink.
said by keith2468:
If we want to be responsible we should have as clear a definition of what is and is not spyware.
The guy at MoeMoneyMaker shouldn't have to ask what he needs to do to get off the restricted list. He should be able to read it.
Did you even look at the links to information and policies about IE-SPYAD that I MYSELF posted? If you did, surely you would have noticed that those pages clearly spell out the targeting criteria for IE-SPYAD and AGNIS (my other block list). Most other reputable anti-spyware vendors publish extensive targeting criteria as well.
Moreover, I pointed ebates.com to just those pages. And as I reported in the first post of this thread, Mr. Isolani essentially ignored all that in his response to my reply, not even bothering to address the targeting criteria or attempting to explain why his company's software didn't qualify ebates.com for targeting.
said by keith2468:
Also, where do you read that I'm proposing a completed list? If a point needs to be expanded, by all means jump in with the expansion. If an additional point is required, make it.
First off, I did not imply that your list was complete. In fact, the reason that I responded was that I recognized it as incomplete, and I wanted to point that out.
Second, as for making my own points, I have -- not only here in this very thread, but in numerous other threads posted on this forum (have you read my review of the FTC Spyware Workshop, which contains lengthy, extended discussions of all of these issues? -- see: »FTC Spyware Workshop: 1st Impressions ), in web pages on my web site (see: »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/junkware.htm ), as well as in my submissions to the FTC (see »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/ftc···ents.htm and »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/dbd-anatomy.htm ).
If I'm reluctant to take up that more general set of issues here, it is because I think it best to try to get to the heart of the more immediate and pressing questions that I've laid out in this thread.
said by keith2468:
Explict permission isn't the same as notice. Notice means announcing you've done it or are about to do it. Whereas permission means asking the user up front each time if you may do it.
And you don't have carte blanche permission if you have to ask for permission each time. Carte blance is like a blank cheque for the other party to fill in whatever they want -- without coming back for permission.
You missed my point here. My point was that your standards end up swallowing themselves. All the reputable anti-spyware apps that I know of would easily satisfy standards 1-5 that you offer. They would also meet standard 6, however you want to couch it, because they offer users a list of apps that they propose to remove, give the users the option of selecting or de-selecting each one, and even provide extended information about the application and the reasons for detection and removal. By your standards (that is, if they're going to be consistent from anti-spyware apps to regular apps like MoeMoneymaker, which also remove applications), this notice, choice, and consent (permission, in short) is all that is needed. We don't need a definition of "spyware" if the user has been given notice, choice, and consent and permission has been secured to remove those apps. If you still insist that the anti-spyware apps do need to limit themselves to detecting and removing only "spyware," then that same or a similar standard must apply to apps like MoeMoneyMaker, because it doesn't make any sense to limit the range of apps that Ad-aware or Spybot can remove while not limiting the range of apps that MoeMoneyMaker can remove.
said by keith2468:
Good point. I invite you and others to answer this -- I'm just starting the list.
I'd suggest the answer has to apply to preventative measures as well, because otherwise the spyware will simply be packaged with anti-spyware.
I've already answered it -- just below the portion of my post that you quoted. I said:
said by Eric L. Howes:
What if there is a significant base of users out there who essentially say, "We'd like to load a block list or program that restricts or blocks ebates.com (or claria.com, or whenu.com, etc.), no matter what the 'experts' say." Are you suggesting that other people like JavaCool or I ought not be able to build such preventative measures like SpywareBlaster or IE-SPYAD simply because the domains and ActiveX controls we target (per user demand) don't fit the standards you've outlined above? That would be a strange notion of "permission" and "choice" indeed.
In other words, I don't think these absolute standards should apply to preventative measures. I would argue that it would be both good manners and in the interests of users for targeting criteria to be published and generally adhered to, but to prohibit the building of block lists or other preventative measures because they target things outside an "officially acceptable" list of "spyware" domains or programs would effectively be telling users, "You have no right to access and use preventative measures to establish control over the use of your computer as you see fit if those preventative measures don't fit 'official standards.'" And that hardly squares with any notion of individual choice or responsibility that I know of.
As for your whitelist suggestion, this is covered in the IE-SPYAD ReadMe:
»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt
See the section titled "How can I save my "disabled" entries?" I've been trying to figure out some way to incorporate this into the batch file installer without making things more confusing, esp. since the usual practice of IE-SPYAD users is to delete the old version and download the new version when updates are available. In other words, it's a matter of coming up with a set of suggested procedures for using the whitelist and preserving it across updates.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
jpeachman
join:2000-05-23
Pittsburg, CA
| reply to novaflare
said by novaflare :
If im not mistaken ebates.com it self isnt blocked its the domains for mo money maker that are blocked. If ebates is blocked unblock it and block only the mo money domains.
There may be other sites that are distributing MoMoneyMaker (either directly or bundled with ad-supported software), but I don't think there is a separate MMM website. I understand Eric's question pertains to the blocking of ebates.com as a means of restricting MMM, since I believe MMM connects to ebates.com in order to function.
Joe | |
suzi
Premium
join:2004-05-01
| reply to Mele20
Mele20 said:
quote:
They almost never take any personal responsiblilty for what has happened. They want a quick fix and then they go back to the very same behaviors that got them the spyware the first time. Yes, they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications. It is frightening to see the number of people who would rather blame a business that has done nothing illegal for their woes because they refuse to look within themselves to find the real culprit.
That seems like a rather backward viewpoint to me. Using tools like IE-SPYAD to prevent spyware/hijacking *IS* taking personal responsibility. You seem to overlook the fact that spyware/adware uses *deceptive* methods - burying the EULA's, bundling with other applications, to *trick* uneducated web surfers into downloading their crapware.
It would be like saying it's my own fault for buying a faulty product even though the salesperson gave me a phony sales pitch and lied about the product. I don't think so.
I'm taking personal responsibility for the safety of my computer by using SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, IE-SPYAD, Ad-aware, Spybot Search & Destroy. Not doing so would be like going having unprotected sex with someone diagnosed with AIDS. The internet is full of exploits, spyware, malware, trojans and so on. Not having protection is foolish.
Eric Howes said:
quote:
Look through that paragraph again, Mele20. It is logical nonsense; complete and utter poppycock.; BS on stilts.
I agree 100%.
--
aka Suzi, Spyware Warrior | |
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to Mele20
Mele20 ,Your actions are not consistent with your words. You use programs like proxomitron and firefox to provide security for your system against malware and silent downloads, yet condemn others who choose to use security applications - except those you use.
said by from »Re: Common Tracking Cookies...
I don't have to worry either way because I don't see any ads or popups because everything is filtered through Proxo. I could use Proxo to change all cookies to session only, to block, to fake, whatever if I wished.
Following your logic, if you practiced safe browsing you wouldn't go to sites that left undesirable items on your system. If you really believed what you say, you would be using no security applications or settings and relying only on your browsing habits and a simple firewall that blocks unsoolicited inbound requests.
Eric's application rules are consistent with many other product creators who consider the ebate/MMM. If a user wants to trust a site listed in IE-Spyad, it is a trivial process do make that change. If you don't like IE-SPYAD, don't use it. Implying to users in a security forum that they only need use caution in browsing is irresponsible;
said by »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications.
Ill-mannered, personally disparaging, and assumptive language berating people you don't know is not consistent with good manners, social awareness or professional standards or those of this forum, let alone what one would expect of a person who claims a Ph.D. It demonstrates a high level of disregard for others, and disparaging them unnecessarily demonstrates a poor attitude toward others who are doing their best to be responsible.
I recommend you read your own sig and adjust accordingly.
said by sig:
Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny."
I also recommend you give the same deference to others you ask for yourself; reread your words in
said by »Re: SpywareBlaster 3.2 keeps crashing... :
Why you feel you need to ridicule me because I did not like KIAV 5.0 personal (you like ADS tags on all your files fine...I don't) and prefer another OS than the one your family likes is something I don't understand. Care to enlighten me as to why you are so hostile?
Try giving the freedom and attitude to others that you seem to advocate for yourself. You'll be the happier for it.
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something. | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
1 edit | reply to eburger68
Eric, clearly we are not connecting. Someone new to the forum would find it hard to believe we are both against people and companies being victimized by other people and companies on the Internet.
For the third time you are doing the right thing looking at the original product. Whereas those of us just helping limited numbers of other people can reasonably rely on the opinions Google turns up, as a publisher of a widely advertised and widely used product you have to do your own research, or at least confirm that the research google turns up is current and not just a repeated opinion from a third site. And that is what you are doing, the right thing, looking at the product and talking to its vendor, and doing your own research.
Anyways, good luck. I'm going to keep using your product even if you don't feel like updating your user interface.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ) | |
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to EGeezer
My actions are consistent with my words. I have not always used Proxo nor I have I always used FF but I didn't get any spyware during the years I used IE and no Proxo. I even had AOL dial up for two years and managed to stay clean then too. I do not use a software firewall and haven't for over two years. When I stopped using a software firewall, I had W98SE and had no hardware firewall. Everyone here predicted dire consequences. Ha! I was just fine. I do have a router now but if I didn't I would just tie XP down so that it doesn't need a firewall. I know how to do it and may do it anyway as I don't really care about networking the two computers. This way I can tie my W98SE box back down securely so I don't need even the router as I am not happy with the router.
I could easily turn off Proxo and use IE with complete confidence that I will not get any spyware. I use Proxo not for its security but because it stops gif animation which I hate as it triggers a migraine headache and I use it because it blocks ads. As for FF, I use it because it has tabbed browsing and other features I like. The better security is nice but that is not why I use it and Mozilla. I don't like IE. If I liked it I would use it. I could turn off my AV and not be concerned about getting viruses either.
As for my berating people, I haven't done that. Rather I have been berated for stating some obvious facts that some of you don't like to hear. I fail to see what my signature has to do with any of this. It regards survival of the individual spirit in the bleakest of circumstances and I am a survivor although, thank God, not of the Nazi death camps. I know that for instance you people in this thread can try and hurt me as much as you wish but I will survive because you cannot take from me my attitude ...you cannot defeat and break my spirit just as the Nazis could not break Victor Frankl's spirit. They took everything from him but the one truly important thing and that they could not take...his mental attitude in the face of such immense monstrosity and horror.
I have never advocated that users not learn about safe hex and that includes using safe browser settings and installing MS security patches, not using file and print sharing, etc.I have also never said users shouldn't come here to ask for help if they got infected. I simply think they do not need to rely on all these antispyware applications so they can continue their bad behavior that landed them in this forum in the first place. I believe they should modify their behavior so they don't need all these applications. I believe that business owners have some rights and that it is not the fault of the business owner if the computer user thinks he can have his cake and eat it also which is what many of you seem to believe is true. That is never true. You have the right to a different philosophy of life but while you accuse me of being rigid and wanting everyone to be like me you are doing exactly what you accuse me of and so is Eric.
I could refute every single thing you and eburger have said but it is a waste of my time. Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics. Eric is very emotionally involved in his witch hunting and he is very irrational on this subject. No wonder Mr.Isolani hasn't come to this thread and didn't bother to try and engage Eric in meaningful dialog. I suspect Eric that you started this thread not to get meaningful input since you have demonstrated that you cannot handle input that doesn't agree with your viewpoint without flaming the poster rather it seems obvious at this point that you started this thread for the purpose of getting other witchhunters to agree with you so you would feel justified in continuing your witchhunt and you could pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how "fair" you have been with eBates.
BTW, Eric I have read all your papers on privacy, etc. and I have always admired you until today. I will never forget how much help you and R2 gave me when I was trying to get corrupted SunJava installs off my 98SE box sometime back so your need to flame because I don't agree with your witchhunt surprises and saddens me. I am a premium member at Computer Cops and I go there every day, I am a senior member of Wilders Security and post there everyday. I also read the Net Integration forums several times a week. I test my knowledge by analyzing Hijack This posts before the experts see them and then compare to see how I am doing. I do quite well. I am well aware that spyware can be nasty but I still contend that this is due primarily to users thinking that computers are toasters and even when they rudely learn differently they, for the most part, refuse to change their behavior so that they can be safe without the need for all these antispyware applications,etc.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning | |
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| said by mele20 in »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
:
As for my berating people, I haven't done that.
said by same post:
Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics.
Thanks for making my point  Hope you get to feeling better ...
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something. | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
1 edit | reply to keith2468
Keith2468:
I appreciate your opinion that I am doing the right thing in seeking input on the ebates.com issue. If we have minor disagreements on the specifics of certain issues, I certainly don't regard that as anything other than what it is: a disagreement on certain specifics.
You also wrote:
said by keith2468 :
Anyways, good luck. I'm going to keep using your product even if you don't feel like updating your user interface.
OK, it's not so much that I don't "feel like updating" the IE-SPYAD user interface (in fact I've long recognized that a nicer interface would help users), it's more that I'm limited in what I can do. I am not a programmer, thus I'm limited to batch files and Reg files that I create myself.
As has been apparent for over a year now, the batch file/Reg file installation and management methods have their limits, esp. given the nature of the things users are now demanding. The batch file/Reg file format is creaky, but there's little I can do about that myself.
When I first created IE-SPYAD four years ago, it was a simple, small Reg file list coupled with a ReadMe. I had no idea that: a) it would become so popular that I would be releasing new versions 4 years later; and b) the nature of the list would become so involved that a whole separate interface would become required for optimal use.
In other words, IE-SPYAD has simply grown far beyond what I expected it to be. If I could create a special interface for it, I woud do that tomorrow, but I can't. Perhaps someone with an interest in IE-SPYAD and some basic programming skills would be kind enough to offer a hand. Until then, I'm stuck with batch files and Reg files.
Best regards,
Eric L. Howes | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to jpeachman
Joe:
One minor clarification:
You wrote:
said by jpeachman :
Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com?
IE-SPYAD places domains like ebates.com into the Restricted sites zone. Once placed in the Restricted sites zone, web sites cannot use certain technologies like Java, ActiveX, and scripting. The sites themselves are generally still accessible; it's just that certain parts of the web site may be "broken," as it were, depending on the nature of the content.
This is what Mr. Isolani was complaining about: that users were attempting to use services at ebates.com and that those services were broken because they were dependent upon technologies denied to sites and domains in the Restricted sites zone.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer :
said by mele20 in »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
:
As for my berating people, I haven't done that.
said by same post:
Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics.
Thanks for making my point Hope you get to feeling better ...
How did I make your point? I stated a fact not an opinion. Only opinions can berate. Facts are facts.
BTW, I hope YOU feel better soon so your mind is working more clearly.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning | |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to eburger68
- Hi Eric, I have 3 friends that I think are maybe between contracts. I'll see if any of them are interested and feel up to volunteering for this. The thing is, most of their work has been mainframe, although they have all taken at least some PC software courses.
- If anyone else knows a programmer who may be interested, maybe put them in touch with Eric. It is a good cause. Something to put on their resume, that can be made to fit on a diskette or a CD, that is well known, and that they can quickly demo to a potential employer.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ) | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to eburger68
keith2468:
Thanks for taking an interest in this.
The interface itself needn't be naything flashy or fancy. It will have to display domains in an easy-to-use list, allow users to build a custom white list and black list that can be preserved across updates, handle updates (both additions and removals to the main list) gracefully, and will need to offer users an optional "Not for Everyone" list from which domains can be enabled and disabled. Plus, it will need to handle several quirks in the way IE creates keys and sub-keys for domains and sub-domains.
So, the real difficulty in writing this thing is going to be working out a system to juggle all the different classifications of domains and user preferences.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
|
I don't "do" IE zones, but I could have sworn someone posted about a GUI-based zone maintenance program a long time ago... If it's open source you could just wrap it around Eric's list, no?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to eburger68
Hi All:
As you know, I've been looking into the ebates.com domain and how it's being used by the MoeMoneyMaker software. So far as I can tell, the ebates.com domain is not used by that application in any way that IE-SPYAD could affect -- meaning, that it isn't being used for drive-by-downloads, pop-ups, or other forms of obnoxious market/advertising.
Given that the ebates.com has only a very limited *functional* connection with the MoeMoneyMaker software, the only thing being accomplished by loading it into the Restricted sites zone is to interfere with the use of the domain by folks who actually want to use the services there. I have no interest in interfering with the use of those services by people who voluntarily choose to do so.
Thus, in the next update what I will do is move the ebates.com domain (and only that one domain) to the "Not for Everyone" and disable it by default. It will still be in the IE-ADS.REG file (which is the installer), but users who want to restrict that domain will need to enable it themselves -- it will not be installed by default.
If, down the road, I see evidence that the ebates.com domain is being used for drive-by-downloads, pop-ups, or other undesirable activitiy, I will add it back into the main list, where it will be loaded by default.
The IE-SPYAD ReadMe contains instructions on how to customize the IE-ADS.REG file and even built your own custom blacklist.
If you have any questions about IE-SPYAD or how this change will work, please let me know.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
|
