µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

Someone made an interesting observation on MalwareTips:

https://malwaretips.com/threads/which-ubo-filters-2023-do-you-use.122979/#post-1038698

I kind of looked around there, here and at GitHub for an explanation but didn't find anything. I went back to the two prior versions found on this page and it's still showing 0/70 on the default list Resource Abuse. Anyone know what's going on with this?

Spoiler

Edit: tried disabling all my other lists in case of duplicates and this did not restore anything.

 

Same here. The update to 1.49.2 also deleted all my custom lists, including my own Grayware Blocklist, so be sure to check

As a workaround for the empty Resource Abuse list, I've added the No Coin list, which is still being maintained: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hoshsadiq/adblock-nocoin-list/master/nocoin-ublock.txt

 

See:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/2629#issuecomment-1529015956.

 

Ah, thanks very much, nicolaasjan.

 

No problems here with Firefox and the uBO, so it's probably not a Firefox thing. Maybe a Chrome thing?

 

See my answer above.

 

Outstanding, thank you nicolaasjan! Figures, I only looked thru the open issues. If it's OK with you I will quote your reply in the Malwaretips thread to someone's concerns about this list (or lack thereof).

Edit: never mind, already done.

 

Thanks. Must have missed your post.

 

@Gandalf_The_Grey

Hi,I saw that elsewhere you posted that you use AdGuard Base filter + EasyList (Optimized) in UBO.

Did you notice that in this list if you mouse click on "view content" eye icon it highlights that there are as many as 14 errors?



I am not clear how much this may affect the blocking,it would need to ask mr.Hill.

But I personally prefer to use lists with 1/3 errors at most.

 

Thanks, I never noticed that error reporting in filter lists.
Luckily, of the filters that I use, there is only one that has errors. That is EasyList, which has 9 errors. But with 32226 entries in that list, I hope 9 errors is not so bad.

 

There is also another very interesting possibility.
You can from Filterlists check at the subscription stage of the chosen list the amount of errors present.

For example, I would never use "AdGuard Cookie Notices filter":





P.S.

I have only 2 lists with 1 error.

 

6 of those have the '-abp-properties' syntax:

https://i.postimg.cc/GhnnmrZ7/screenshot-20230507.png

Declined in 2017 by Mr. Hill (slow to parse).

Easylist should make their filters uBO compatible.

 

Thanks, never noticed that
That is the drawback of using AdGuard lists in uBlock Origin.
Changed AdGuard Base filter + EasyList (Optimized) for EasyList (Optimized), that list has no errors.
Preferring the optimized lists above the regular ones, because with those there is no more delay when playing video's on a regional Dutch news site.
https://www.omroepwest.nl/

 

AG maintains many filterlists especially for uBO. E.g. blocking cookie notices (without errors):
https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/18.txt

 

Yes, I already use that list since I eliminated the annoyance list.

 

Are you talking about AdGuard Annoyances filter (Optimized)? If so what did you replace it with?

 

Hi,these are my current filter lists:




As you see I have Kees' MV3 list because it seems to me,currently, a better solution than the addendum.
In the absence of a response from the maintainer to the issue I opened.

 

@Sampei Nihira
Maybe you've explained it somewhere else, but why don't you use EasyPrivacy or something like that. Most part of tracker blocking on DNS level?

 

At the DNS level I use 2 lists:

• OISD Full
• Easy Privacy

 

O.K. Thanks

 

Quite frankly, this makes no sense to me. The EasyPrivacy list contains right now more than 5,300 filters (at the top of the list and more of them at the botton part) that will not be honored at DNS level at all. All you can block at DNS level are (sub)domains - and the ones in EasyPrivacy are surely already covered in OISD Full. So adding EasyPrivacy to your DNS level protection provides no added value, and at the same time you give up using the other filters by disabling EasyPrivacy in uBO. That's .. well ... sub-optimal.

 

My purpose with the 2 DNS-level lists is to have a minimum of coverage when it happens (rarely) that I momentarily disable UBO.
As you can see I prefer to have the extra 1%.

Only OISD:



Only EasyPrivacy:



OISD + EasyPrivacy



Even with the extension disabled, the anti-trackers protection (Strict) of my browser is active.

For you it will be a no sense,for me on the other hand it is important.

 

Well, this contradicts with your earlier post where EasyPrivacy is shown as disabled in uBO.

You're still relying on that service which @gorhill has several times shown as unreliable?

 

You will notice that UBO is disabled and mr.Hill probably did not talk as I did to the developer who sent me the test documentation.
So I am able to perform with my browser a let's say "more reliable test".
But I will not post in this forum any of this,for privacy reasons.