µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Has anyone noticed that with uBlock 1.37.2, the search page for google is shifted to the left and no longer centered on Firefox?

If I disable uBlock, the page is centered again. Also. If I try to install a previous version from github, Firefox blocks the install because it says its an unverified add-on. Is there a way to unblock the block nonsense?

Edit: set xpinstall.signatures.required to false and installed 138.0 and that did not help. If I disable cosmetic filtering, it gets centered again (on the previous version too). How do I go about fixing this so I can enable cosmetic filtering again?

 

Sorry I can't be of any help because I disable cosmetic filtering globally and browsing this way is no problem. What needs to get filtered gets filtered. Only occasionally do I need to create a custom filter. If you don't like this option, then disable per site. Just something to consider ...
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-cosmetic-filtering

 

Today, I purged all caches from Filter lists and updated them. Google is now centered again even with cosmetic filters enabled. I guess I won't know which filter was causing this.

 

next time you better go about:debugging -> this firefox to try out unsigned extension(s)
because that switch is only available in (maybe) beta, nightly or ESR but its a risky switch which creates an unsecure firefox concerning unwanted installation of unwanted extensions with malicious code.

 

Yes, I already set the switch back to true and only disabled it for that specific test with the latest uBlock extension not yet released to AMO, Thanks for the tip about:debugging

 

Is element picker and zapper modes supposed to work with content from RSS feeds?

I currently use Thunderbird portable 78.14 and have a few RSS feeds that I follow there. I was under the impression element picker did not work at all, because it would not react when selecting it for whatever article I was reading from a feed such as http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheWindowsClub. I just tried element picker by selecting About Thunderbird and selecting Release Notes and it works on that content, but not on RSS feed content. Does anyone with a similar setup have this working?

Edit: Tested this again with ThunderbirdPortableTest_93.0_Beta_1 and no problems with RSS Feeds using Element Picker and Zapper modes there, so I guess the APIs in v78 don't work correctly for everything.

 

hi
really love it but can't understand why ublock can't block ads youtube in incognito , adguard can do it
can't understand because I have tried to use the same filters (same fileters in adguard and ublock)
when i browe youtube i 'm not logged in and i use chrome 64bit
does somebody know why?
thanks

 

I don't think it is a good idea,for privacy,to enable extensions in browsers in incognito mode.

 

depends on extension, uBo is one i trust, uMatrix too and some others which dont leak home

 

I personally would rather use something else.

 

Kees1958 has posted another list with twice as many rules as the original one:

https://github.com/Kees1958/W3C_annual_most_used_survey_blocklist/blob/master/EU_US+most_used_ad_and_tracking_networks

Interestingly, all the other lists do NOT contain any rules from Kees1958's list.
I don't trust using this list with only the other 3 lists recommended by Kees1958.

 

I will watch this and see how it develops. I love the idea of only using four lists and that's it.

 

In my opinion, it is counterproductive to eliminate even the ublock filters lists.
With the hardware features of modern pc's having at least 40000 network filters is the minimum.
In my ex pc with Windows XP I had about those network filters with less than 1GB of RAM.
My daughter's pc which is more than 10 years old and has 4GB of RAM has about the same rules as written above.

 

That's because the same blocking is covered mostly by other kind of rules that are not blocking entire domains.
Like:

Code:

&ad_block=
&ad_code=
&ad_height=
&ad_ids=
&ad_network_
&ad_slot=
&ad_sub=
&ad_time=
&ad_type=
&ad_url=
&ad_zones=
&adbannerid=
&adclient=
&adflag=
&adgroupid=
&adlist=
&adnum=
&adpageurl=
&adsafe=
&adserv=

Kees1958 is trying to cover more with less rules, so you won't need EasyList for example.
Downside is that you will miss the "unbreak" rules, I guess.

 

I don't use EasyList.
However with about 43000 total network filters I decided to try the list of Kees1958 not giving up my other lists.

P.S.

In the pc of my daughter that has more years of my pc, I left the other list with half rules.

 

B.t.w., are you familiar with "AdGuard CNAME original trackers list"?
Only 33 rules, blocking CNAME trackers.

Code:

Description: The list of trackers that are often disguised using CNAME. This list is supposed to be used only by Software capable of scanning CNAME records.
Homepage: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

Code:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/master/combined_original_trackers.txt

 

If you use that list with Firefox there is a possibility of breaking some websites.
Why this question?
Do you want to replace EasyPrivacy and/or AdGuard Tracking Protection?

 

I have not experienced breakage so far. Could you give an example?

No, I was just curious.

 

My current lists:





W. members may notice the absence of anti-phishing and anti-malwares lists which had a purpose in my former Windows XP pc because my New Moon 28 browser didn't support such protections.

Fans of the optimized version of the annoyances lists can also use the Fanboy's Annoyance List (Optimized) but this list at least in the web sites I frequent, has lower performances.

 

I don't have Firefox installed on any of my PCs.

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

 

@gorhill still has concerns regarding Chromium's implementation of Manifest V3 for extensions...

 

@gorhill

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

there is no issue known at mozillas bugtracker, any reference you can give us?

 

It's too early to draw conclusions like changing our favorite browser.
Let the developers work out their issues and then we'll see what to do.

 

@Brummelchen
This the only somewhat relevant thing I could find, but with no real answer:
https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/can...ons-mozilla-org-is-critically-broken/84830/14

But I just installed the dev. edition (1.38.1b2) on Firefox Developer and Nightly with:

Code:

xpinstall.signatures.required ---> false

Of course you get a warning then.