µBlock, a lean and fast blocker

I use the AdGuard CNAME list and have since several years.

Has anyone found the yellow shield w/uBO loading when you open your browser to be hindering you slightly? Luckily not here really, but I did notice that I'm almost subconsciously "waiting" until the yellow turns to red on the uBO icon.

 

I got it automatically in Chromium and Edge, but it failed to update properly in Chromium, with an error message. Uninstalling and reinstalling fixed it.

 

I like the color change because it lets me know when uBO is active

 

OK, I added Adguard DNS filter (52301 used from 52311)

 

That's correct!

 

This is explained on https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Toolbar-icon :

And the latter explains:

 

This is incorrect.
You have 2 options if you want ALL CNAME trackers blocked:

• You use AdGuard DNS (DOH) in the browser.

• CNAME "original" (Firefox) or Disguised (Chromium) filter lists.

 

Can you share links to add them to uBlock, please?

 

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

 

Thx. @imdb turned me on to the Chrome ones.

 

I asked what is the difference between using CNAME disguised trackers list and CNAME disguised ADS list.

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

The CNAME ADS filter list has many fewer rules, and if it is placed in UBO it has the same title:



P.S.

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/75

 

I'm still a bit confused, especially from the last github reply.

So is it recommended to have both filters enabled or just the trackers list? I have enabled both so far without apparent issues.

 

No.
You only need to subscribe to a CNAME list.

Although I personally prefer the CNAME Trackers list probably the protection effect is identical if you subscribed to the CNAME ADS list.
At least I understand it that way from the fact that by subscribing to both CNAME lists,they have identical title.

I want to keep the CNAME trackers list under review and see if it decreases in the total rules

 

Yes identical title is confusing. @imdb pointed me to https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers#the-lists where AG team leaves it up to users but it appears it's ok to use them both unless you have any issues.

 

I replaced the AG CNAME trackers list with the AG CNAME ads list.
From what I understand (I hope) you can use either filter list indifferently.
Getting the usual benefit.
Blocking CNAME trackers for blocking the corresponding ads.

The simultaneous use of both and lists is therefore useless.

 

Who knows ... but the facts speak for themselves ... there are two separate AG CNAME lists, one blocking trackers and the second blocking ads. The ads list apparently isn't included in the trackers list.
Given that the ads list contains only 23K filters and considering that uBlock can handle identical filters without any negative performance impact I will stick with both unless it causes problems.

 

Stealth-updated to 1.50 in Firefox. About time, isn't it?

 

1.50.0 was available in Firefox, June 12. I got it offered when clicking 'Check for Updates' in Firefox.
I have no idea why automatically updating took another 7 days, on your system.

 

for the record: i cannot use a modified build locally loaded in chromium v114. details: ublock lists are missing in total, no adguard list present. Edge is fine, firefox is fine. please dont ask, i switched to the official build.

 

Lately there was some talk about CNAME tracking. Blocking on DNS level seems to be most effective. If you don't do this then uBO (in Firefox) will protect you or otherwise Adguard Tracking Protection or EasyPrivacy. Even EasyPrivacy minified that I use in uBO, has 9.072 CNAME filterrules. I don't feel the need for extra CNAME filters.

 

Looks like most of the item on the cname-disguised_trackers are of daraz(.)com which is a decently popular online shopping site from South-Asia. So I think it would not be of any use for most people not living in this area.
I asked Hagezi about this list a couple of days ago and this is what he told me,

""This is not a list that should be used as a block list, it rather serves as documentation, that's also what the AdGuard team says. The list contains a lot of "rubbish", if you sort it out, 15% of the over 300000 domains remain. They are not all CNAME trackers either. AdGuard and EasyList only use part of this list, not the whole list.""

 

Hagezi?
Hagezi lists the host d3ward.....doesn't strike me as a very good example of reliability.


My understanding is that the AdGuard team is partly made up of people working at 3 speeds.
In Italy it is bad to believe that you are working at 2 speeds.

Of some open problems they tell you they don't have the resources to solve them so they close them.
Of others they realize after they have messed up and would like you to be motivated to help them in solving their shortcomings.
Of still others they don't care at all.

P.S.

Instead, Yuki2718 is great.
It is because of his valuable contribution that I am led to use AdGuard filter lists.

Without Yuki's input, I would not use any AG filter list.

 

Can you please explain what do you mean by "Hagezi lists the host d3ward"? I can visit the d3ward testing page with Hagezi Multi Pro++ in use.
Hagezi in my experience is the most reliable all-in-one DNS filter list available at the moment. He's also very quick to reply, fix things and open to discussing any issue.

With Adguard I have only experience of reporting ad/annoyance related filter lists issues which they fix very quickly. Reporting to EasyList is annoying. Nowadays, I directly reach out to Yuki2718 if something related to EasyList need fixing and Yuki is always very helpful.

 

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/d3ward/toolz/master/src/d3host.txt

https://d3ward.github.io/toolz/adblock.html


P.S.

I saw that you included my issue #75.
I personally don't have time to waste on solving what they are now asking me to do.
And Yuki points out to them that solving the "problem" is crazy simple.

 

You who are a minimalist with the Original AG CNAME list would only have 57 rules.