Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If it blacklists the server IP addresses, all you need to do is copy the 
> ads to another server and the blacklist is defeated. As a bonus, if you 
> put the ads on the same server as the genuine content, then you *can't* 
> blacklist the server or you'll be blocking genuine content.

  The vast majority of ads come from external URLs. Only an extremely
small minority of ads originate from the same server as the page you are
looking at. The reason for this is that advertisers pay people to put
their ads on their websites, and these ads need to change frequently to
be effective. Hence these websites link to the advertiser's servers to
display the ads. Thus it's enough to blacklist the URLs pointing to the
ad-producing directories in the advertisers' servers.

  The advertisers can't change the URLs because it would break the millions
of websites which show those ads. Hence blacklisting is quite effective.

  Of course *new* ad servers and directories inside those servers pop up
all the time, but that's why the blacklists are updated.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2011 09:25 AM, Warp wrote:

>    The vast majority of ads come from external URLs. Only an extremely
> small minority of ads originate from the same server as the page you are
> looking at. The reason for this is that advertisers pay people to put
> their ads on their websites, and these ads need to change frequently to
> be effective. Hence these websites link to the advertiser's servers to
> display the ads. Thus it's enough to blacklist the URLs pointing to the
> ad-producing directories in the advertisers' servers.
>
>    The advertisers can't change the URLs because it would break the millions
> of websites which show those ads. Hence blacklisting is quite effective.
>
>    Of course *new* ad servers and directories inside those servers pop up
> all the time, but that's why the blacklists are updated.

So, in essence, your argument is that the majority of ads come from a 
small number of static servers?

Certainly I could easily believe that most of the more unknown 
ad-encrusted sites are just being paid to link to somebody else's 
adverts. But if I went to somewhere like a big movie studio, I would 
imagine all the ads on their site probably come from the same server as 
the actual content. (Then again, if you go to a website which exists 
solely to advertise a company's product... the adverts *are* the 
content, in a sense.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Certainly I could easily believe that most of the more unknown 
> ad-encrusted sites are just being paid to link to somebody else's 
> adverts. But if I went to somewhere like a big movie studio, I would 
> imagine all the ads on their site probably come from the same server as 
> the actual content. (Then again, if you go to a website which exists 
> solely to advertise a company's product... the adverts *are* the 
> content, in a sense.)

  That doesn't really matter for two reasons:

1) Even in that case the ads usually come from a specific directory hierachy
which can be blacklisted.

2) If *one* website bypasses AdBlock, who cares? The fact that AdBlock works
on the million other websites who have external advertisers is reason enough
to use it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-07-11 05:29, Invisible a écrit :
>
> And now I must ask which planet *you* are on. This is /the definition/
> of what a spam filter is. And, just like moisturising creams that are
> "guaranteed" to make you look 20 years younger, people make all sorts of
> completely unsubstantiated claims about spam filters.

Find me one, just one, moisturizing cream that makes such a claim.

They use more weasel words than the Wikipedia page on the Rwandan genocide.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>
>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>
> Well, yes, there is that...
>
> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>
>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>> list updates automatically.
>
> I don't get how that can work.
>

Put the following line at the end of your hosts file

127.0.0.1	ads.doubleclick.net

You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear.  One line.  50% of 
all Internet ads gone.  Not bad, eh?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>>
>>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> Well, yes, there is that...
>>
>> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
>> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>>
>>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>>> list updates automatically.
>>
>> I don't get how that can work.
>>
>
> Put the following line at the end of your hosts file
>
> 127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
>
> You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear. One line. 50% of all
> Internet ads gone. Not bad, eh?
>

It's about the biggest ads pusher and cross sites profiler you can find. 
But just that line is not quite enough, it also use those:
ads1.doubleclick.net
ads2.doubleclick.net
ads3.doubleclick.net
ads4.doubleclick.net
ads5.doubleclick.net
ads6.doubleclick.net
ads7.doubleclick.net
ads8.doubleclick.net
ads9.doubleclick.net

It also use the same with .com.

Adblock filters it as *.doubleclick.*

Post a reply to this message

>>> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>>>
>>>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, there is that...
>>>
>>> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
>>> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>>>
>>>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>>>> list updates automatically.
>>>
>>> I don't get how that can work.
>>>
>>
>> Put the following line at the end of your hosts file
>>
>> 127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
>>
>> You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear. One line. 50% of all
>> Internet ads gone. Not bad, eh?
>>
>
> It's about the biggest ads pusher and cross sites profiler you can find.
> But just that line is not quite enough, it also use those:
> ads1.doubleclick.net
> ads2.doubleclick.net
> ads3.doubleclick.net
> ads4.doubleclick.net
> ads5.doubleclick.net
> ads6.doubleclick.net
> ads7.doubleclick.net
> ads8.doubleclick.net
> ads9.doubleclick.net
>
> It also use the same with .com.
>
> Adblock filters it as *.doubleclick.*

I wasn't trying to be exhaustive ON PURPOSE.  Andrew seems to think that 
something is worthless unless it's 100% efficient.  I was just pointing 
out how trivial it is to do most of the work.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm on Earth.

Bloody Ada! When did you go there?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2011 5:03 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 11-7-2011 11:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Which planet are you on again? ;)
>
> Andy is from Milton Keynes. I am not sure if that is a whole planet or
> tha last village populated by irreducible Celts that still resists to
> the Google invaders.
>

Not Kelts but pure Angles and Saxons. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:07:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm on Earth.
> 
> Bloody Ada! When did you go there?

At the moment, it's a vacation spot, with some light contracting work (as 
of today).

*Very* light, not enough to really subsist on, but enough to stretch the 
savings out. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message