Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid. I'm using Mozilla which only opens requested popups and I can live with those adds on the webpage. I'm sure that Norton PF has a whitelist for allowed sites.
ciao, tom
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:57:54AM +0100, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid.
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.
I'm using Mozilla which only opens requested popups and I can live with those adds on the webpage.
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
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid.
It's a pretty stupid filter. Those sites that use a path /ad/ will figure it out eventually and start using something else.
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:19:32 +0000, tarquin wrote:
It's a pretty stupid filter. Those sites that use a path /ad/ will figure it out eventually and start using something else.
Hello,
They still haven't figured it out since I beginning blocking ad using my good old At Guard :0)
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid.
No, it's not ... but if it isn't too difficult to change this, then I would welcome it.
WebWasher and Proxomitron exhibit the same problem.
Timwi
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:20:26AM +0000, Timwi wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid.
No, it's not ... but if it isn't too difficult to change this, then I would welcome it.
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
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:20:26AM +0000, Timwi wrote:
... but if it isn't too difficult to change this, then I would welcome it.
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.
Ah. I was wondering what the two characters were.
Well, I guess you're right that it's an ugly hack, but I think with a verbose enough comment in the source code, that should really not matter too much. It really is a problem for users of WebWasher or Proxomitron, and apparently that Norton Firewall thing too.
I propose just special-casing 'ad' and changing it to '__' or 'gg' or something else that doesn't use hex digits.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Arvind Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:20:26AM +0000, Timwi wrote:
... but if it isn't too difficult to change this, then I would welcome it.
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.
Ah. I was wondering what the two characters were.
Well, I guess you're right that it's an ugly hack, but I think with a verbose enough comment in the source code, that should really not matter too much. It really is a problem for users of WebWasher or Proxomitron, and apparently that Norton Firewall thing too.
I propose just special-casing 'ad' and changing it to '__' or 'gg' or something else that doesn't use hex digits.
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, 6 Jan 2004, Timwi wrote:
Well, I guess you're right that it's an ugly hack, but I think with a verbose enough comment in the source code, that should really not matter too much. It really is a problem for users of WebWasher or Proxomitron, and apparently that Norton Firewall thing too.
Are you sure? I have Proxomitron always on, with lots of filters (banner blaster, kill popup, javascript banners, area map ads, etc, mostly the default stuff), and I don't have any problems looking at the images in the /upload/a/ad/ directory, for example the ones, in [[Shandong]] and in [[Fructose]]. It seems to me that Proxomitron is unaffected, or that only a very specific combination of filters triggers this.
Alfio
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:36:20AM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:20:26AM +0000, Timwi wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:28:07AM -0000, Allan Crossman wrote:
Would it be possible to set it so that uploads are never placed in a path called /ad/ (as they sometimes are at the moment) - I think it's pretty common for software to assume that any such image is an advert and not display it. Certainly Norton Personal Firewall's ad blocking does this...
It's not our fault if Norton PF is that stupid.
No, it's not ... but if it isn't too difficult to change this, then I would welcome it.
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.
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
Jens Frank wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:36:20AM +0530, Arvind Narayanan 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.
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/.
Geez, everyone has better ideas than I! ;-)
So can we make this change, then?
Thanks, Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org