On Thu, 01 Aug 2019 06:21:02 -0500, Randy Wang <r@ndy.wang> wrote:
>In article <7qs4kepr5214si3od1t8qct4cis4jcnf7h@4ax.com>,
>SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8> wrote:
>
>> It got to where they were doing like
>> I said before though. They were leading you to spam or hijackers.
>
>I haven't seen any of that as long as I'm using various ad-blocking and
>script-blocking extensions *as appropriate*, which unfortunately means
>needing to switch those on and off occasionally as conditions dictate.
>(For instance, if you're going to log in on a web board, of course you
>need to have javascript and cookies enabled for the duration. But the
>ad-blocking can still be active.) I know there are many huge
>differences between the configurations you and I are using: different
>computer, operating system, browser, and extension set. So it's a
>classic case of "YMMV". I'm lucky to have a configuration that works
>great and doesn't bug me with much of that garbage. (It's not on a
>Wintel machine, so I can't offer any direct help.)
>
>Here's one example. Sometimes I do something that requires scripting
>enabled temporarily, and then I forget to switch that off afterward.
>Well, when I do that on the otherwise excellent "wipergirls" :-) site
>without being logged in, then whenever I point at an image in a picture
>set, I get a stupid pop-up window (converted to a tab by my browser)
>with some spam. (If you're not logged in, then you're fair game for
>spammers ... that's the general attitude.) So I immediately close
>that, switch off scripting with one click, re-load the vg.to page that
>I'm looking at (which jettisons all of its scripts), and from that
>point
>I can browse normally, and rip picture sets, without being bugged by
>*any* of that garbage. Hooray.
>
>So yeah, I know the problem you're talking about, but there are ways
>around it, some of them pretty easy for us to use. There are also
>several browsers to choose from (Mozilla-based or not, Chromium-based
>or not, etc.), and various extensions available for those. One browser
>that I haven't tried (it's not available for the systems I use) is
>Pale Moon, and I tentatively recommend it because apparently it's a
>Firefox lookalike and (this is very unusual!) it can use the old
>XUL-based FF extensions that work with Firefox version 56 and earlier,
>including "Imagehost Grabber" (IHG), which is probably the best
>image-downloading extension ever. For details, you could read or
>search a VEF discussion thread titled "Image Host Grabber") in the Help
>forum ... which I see now is available without logging in to VEF, and
>that's good as far as it goes. However, you'll also see some spam and
>pop-ups if you load that page without logging in and if your browser
>isn't blocking that crap, which just goes to show what we're up
>against. :-[ Here it is, near the end of the very long thread, with a
>mention of Pale Moon and the problem of XUL extensions in Firefox
>versions after 56:
>
><http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t317039-p26-image-host-grabber.html>
>
>So the general solution is: "Use the ad-blockers, Luke!" If one that
>you try isn't good enough, find a better one. There are many.
With the latest update from Malwarebytes, they're giving me
(another)free two week trial of their Premium software. I'm not going
to pay $40 a year for it though. It works good, but I don't have to
have it.
How many of you could live on $15K a year? I know I can,
'cause I lived on <$9K last year.
|
|