On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:57:54AM +0100, Thomas R. Koll wrote: Why is it stupid? If there are indeed a lot of sites that serve ads from a directory called /ad/ it makes perfect sense to block it. However, its not out fault either, as you say. Norton PF should either have a whitelist or allow you to change its filtering rules. That's your prerogative. Me, I can't stand ads on the pages either, so I've set up adblock to nuke anything that matches /ads/, *.doubleclick.net etc. Haven't come across /ad/ though. Arvind -- Its all GNU to me

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:19:32 +0000, tarquin wrote: Hello, They still haven't figured it out since I beginning blocking ad using my good old At Guard :0) -- Ashar Voultoiz http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar do not send mail to listme(a)listme.dsbl.org

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:20:26AM +0000, Timwi wrote: It wouldn't be difficult to change it, but it would be an ugly hack. The directory name is the first 2 chars of the md5sum of the name of the image. So it would mean either using a different hashing method, affecting *all* images, or putting special case checks in the code. Arvind -- Its all GNU to me

Timwi wrote: Better would be to prefix everything with something. u_* for uploads? so it'd be u_ad/. Not great, but better than special-casing, IMHO. -- Jake

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:36:20AM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote: The directory is /upload/a/ad/, the first letter is used twice, once for /a/ and once for /ad/. It's not hard and not ugly to change this to /a/d/. Then go to /upload/ and do for a in ?; do (cd $a; for b in ??; do ln -s $b `echo $b|cut -c2`; done); done symlinks instead of move since page cache still has links to /a/ad/ Regards, JeLuF