Re: Should I use a proxy? DNS cache?
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[snip]
> Junkbuster similarly greatly increases browsing speed (and pleasure)
> both by halting unnecessary banner downloads (unlike much web graphical
> content, this is largely _unique_ data, and doesn't cache well), and the
> related DNS lookups required to fetch this content. The problem with
> Junkbuster is that it has rather coarse filtering preference options --
> you can set preferences on a sitewide basis, but not (with any level of
> ease) at a personal level. So it's suitable for blocking, say, the
> major banner sites (doubleclick.{net,com}, bingbangmedia.com,
> valueclick.com, looksmart.com, qksrv.net, etc., and possibly some
> wildcards (e.g.: /[Aa]ds, /[Aa]dverts, /banner, /banners), /*/ads,
> /*/banners). But fine-grained control at the gateway isn't possible,
> and you'll have to allow access to nonstandard ports -- I find that :80,
> :81, :88, :8000, :8001, :8009, :8080, :8081, :8881, and :1080 tend to
> cover most (but not all) standard variants.
>
> For my personal browsing preferences, I prefer using Galeon's built-in
> image filtering, though I wish it could provide finer-grained control
> (e.g.: subdirectories) and broader scope (e.g.: regex filtering).
> Ultimately though, content filtering is something you want to put in the
> individual user's hands.
Although I haven't tried it, there is a GNU/Linux version of WebWasher
available at
http://www.webwasher.com/en/products/wwash/download_linux.htm
It's proprietary but free as in beer. I've used it under Windows, and
in practice it worked far better than junkbuster. It seems to have
allow for a decent amount of finer-grained control by the user.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: