It's worrying when you're reasonable and still make no progress. One block list in particular is causing problems for customers who find our website blocked at DNS. I've tried to explain that it isn't necessary to block report-uri[.]com to stop reports.https://github.com/easylist/easylist/issues/3945 …
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
We shifted reports to subdomains back in Aug 2016 so if you wanted to stop reports being sent, it'd be appropriate to block *.report-uri[.]com and not harm our website. Unfortunately it seems near impossible to get some to listen to reason...https://scotthelme.co.uk/just-how-much-traffic-can-you-generate-using-csp/ …
1 proslijeđeni tweet 22 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
It is an odd situation. I realise the value and benefit of these projects (I run a PiHole at home!), but the extremist stance of 'all 3rd party must die' does more harm than good I fear.
2 proslijeđena tweeta 31 korisnik označava da mu se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
To demonstrate why I think this approach is bad, ask yourself this question: "If a paying customer can't access your website because of a privacy plugin/DNS filter, what's your advice to them?"
3 proslijeđena tweeta 21 korisnik označava da mu se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place! I want people to use their privacy plugins and DNS services of course, but these things are killing our website which ironically provides no benefit to anyone and may result in them turning it off :(
7 replies 1 proslijeđeni tweet 21 korisnik označava da mu se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
I guess we should have seen that coming. Presenting an argument based on logic and reason gets you blocked. This is a perfect demonstration of exactly what the problem is!pic.twitter.com/8oXFw8LJkO
11 replies 8 proslijeđenih tweetova 46 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Scott_Helme
I fail to understand the issue here. EasyPrivacy blocks `report-uri .com` only when it's used as 3rd-party, so it's not going to affect `report-uri .com` site. That other lists out there indiscriminately extract filters from EasyPrivacy surely isn't EasyPrivacy's fault?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @gorhill
You still don't need report-uri[.]com filtered even as a 3rd party, only our subdomains. You can verify that with a few seconds of your time if you'd like to do so.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Scott_Helme
The question is why should EasyPrivacy modify that filter? it's working perfectly as intended as it is. The issue lies with whoever extract filters from EasyPrivacy to be used as DNS/hosts lists -- *they* are changing the semantic of the original filter.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisniku/ci @gorhill
Because it's breaking something it doesn't need to. As I said before, there's no need to block report-uri[.]com unless you can explain a risk.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
I don't see the site being broken with EasyPrivacy enabled. Requests to `report-uri .com` were not blocked, except for only one because of the filter `ga.min.js`.pic.twitter.com/VoL1y0JRIO
-
-
Odgovor korisniku/ci @gorhill
Except that's not the use case we're talking about...
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa - Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.