Adblock Plus

With this new AB+ 0.7, the way to catch pub has changed and now a lot of non-regexp filters do not slow down the web.
Then, filterset like rick752's easylist seems to be the good solution, because it is simple and easy to understand.

I think I've well-summarized, don't I ? (Edit: more explanation here)

Like I adapt a new personal filterset, I wanted to know what is the better way to block a domain ?
For example;
Rick uses *falkag*
I use |http://a.as-eu.falkag* , |http://a.as-us.falkag*

what is the better solution ?

pirlouy wrote: Rick uses *falkag*
I use |http://a.as-eu.falkag* , |http://a.as-us.falkag*

The first one is better in my opinion as it is less redundant.

pirlouy wrote: Rick uses *falkag*
I use |http://a.as-eu.falkag* , |http://a.as-us.falkag*

what is the better solution ?

I haven't had a false positive yet with just *falkag*.
If you find one, let me know.

I would block /^http:\/\/([^./]+\.)*falkag\.net\//, because I think I've found a lot of falkag subdomains, so I don't want to go to through the effort of blocking every single one.

@ecjs: yes, the first is shorter, but with the AB+ 0.7, the lenght seems to be not important...
And with the second, thanks to '|' it avoid to do a search anywhere in an URL...

That's why I'm not sure.

@Rick: I never say *falkag* is a filter who causes false positive, it was just an example.

pirlouy wrote: Rick uses *falkag*
I use |http://a.as-eu.falkag* , |http://a.as-us.falkag*

The simpler, the better.

@pirlouy: I use |http://*.falkag.net/* and |http://as1.falkag.de/* - and I think that it is better to include more text in the filter.

And there is one exception to the rule "a lot of non-regexp filters do not slow down the web" - these non-regexp filters should have at least 8 characters of normal text somewhere (meaning no wildcards). Adblock Plus can use this text as a shortcut then. Filters that don't have enough text like *falkag* will be treated just like regexps. It is justified in cases like */ads/* but not here - *falkag.net* would do already.

Wladimir Palant wrote:@pirlouy: I use |http://*.falkag.net/* and |http://as1.falkag.de/* - and I think that it is better to include more text in the filter.

And there is one exception to the rule "a lot of non-regexp filters do not slow down the web" - these non-regexp filters should have at least 8 characters of normal text somewhere (meaning no wildcards). Adblock Plus can use this text as a shortcut then. Filters that don't have enough text like *falkag* will be treated just like regexps. It is justified in cases like */ads/* but not here - *falkag.net* would do already.

Alright.

@Rick: the difference is - instead of assuming that there will be no false positives, you know that there won't be any. *falkag* may match images in an artikle on Falk AG to give you one example.

We need a blocking FAQ/commands list!
I did not knew, that "|" is possible and has a goog function. I do not really know whats possible with DIV-blocking... Perhaps there are even more features, that I am not aware of.

@Master X: Both bars and advanced element hiding are new in Adblock Plus 0.7 - there wasn't a release yet so the FAQ hasn't been updated.

I would think that:

*http://a.*falkag* (if "a.[whatever] falkag is the ad offender)

... would work the best, then. This would block JS calls where the ad is in the center of a js link.

Wouldn't using a "pipe" (|http) only block an ad that STARTS with the site because the "pipe" denotes that http has to START the line. That would normal not be that way as a 3rd party javascript link.

Am I correct?

rick752 wrote:Wouldn't using a "pipe" (|http) only block an ad that STARTS with the site because the "pipe" denotes that http has to START the line. That would normal not be that way as a 3rd party javascript link.

I think so. but if you only would like to block a specific thing, this can be very useful.

Example: "|http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/" since this would never be a link.

Master X wrote: Example: "|http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/" since this would never be a link.

That is probably NOT true! I am not a big fan of using a "pipe" at the beginning of a line because there are many sites out there that serve ads (including Google) from there own databases.

If xyz.com calls from a database, "|http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/"
will NOT be blocked because the "call" will not come at the beginning of the IP string.

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ (without the pipe) should be a better filter string. Yes?

I am not sure, since this intern calls in some cases modify the adress (special charakters like ":" and "/" are encoded). When this happens only the filter "pagead" would block. But this can become dangeraus, because false positives can occur.