adblock2privoxy VS easylist

All you're asking is already possible with Privoxy[1], which is even stronger than a browser adblocker. It's a very old software: it used to be unmaintained and lacking some essential features, but thankfully the development resumed and is now fully fuctional again with the modern web.

It can be used as an adblocker based on domain, request path, HTTP headers, etc, but it can do much more. It can redirect requests (for example, replacing assets from a CDN with a local cache), modify headers (stripping or making cookies temporary, changing user agent, etc.) and even rewrite the content of web pages using regular expressions or any external program.

By default, it has only a basic configuration that blocks tracking and ads, but there are tools[2] that convert adblock rules to the Privoxy format, so it will be functionally equivalent to adblock.

It acts as a CONNECT proxy, so you can run it locally or on a router and if combined with a NAT rule, it can also work transparently (obviously, you need to manually trust a CA certificate for https).

[1]: https://www.privoxy.org/

[2]: https://github.com/essandess/adblock2privoxy

import { ScreenshotOptions } from "./schema"; import puppeteer, { Page } from "puppeteer"; import { PuppeteerBlocker } from "@cliqz/adblocker-puppeteer"; import fetch from "cross-fetch"; let blocker: PuppeteerBlocker | null = null; async function blockCookieBanners(page: Page) { if (!blocker) { blocker = await PuppeteerBlocker.fromLists(fetch, [ // the list of the cookie banners to block from the https://easylist.to/ website "https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt", ]); } await blocker.enableBlockingInPage(page); } export async function render( options: ScreenshotOptions ): Promise<{ url: string }> { const browser = await puppeteer.launch(); const page = await browser.newPage(); if (options.block_cookie_canners) { await blockCookieBanners(page); } await page.setViewport({ width: options.viewport_width, height: options.viewport_height, deviceScaleFactor: options.device_scale_factor, }); await page.goto(options.url); const encodedScreenshot = await page.screenshot({ type: "jpeg", encoding: "base64", fullPage: options.full_page, }); await browser.close(); return { url: `data:image/jpeg;base64,${encodedScreenshot}` }; }

uBlock Origin has a few lists for cookie banners that I always keep on [0][1]

[0] https://github.com/easylist/easylist/tree/master/easylist_co...

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/An...

I think this is now fixed (or worked around) by https://github.com/easylist/easylist/issues/17937 ?

You mean the VG Wort METIS tracking in order to participate in the German royalty scheme? From a publisher perspective that tracking is necessary, but from a user perspective it's just another example of third party tracking. Thus, it is part of some filterlists that uBlock Origin users can subscribe to, for example the EasyPrivacy list. Talking to the filterlist authors is very unlikely to resolve this: after all, it is tracking, regardless of intention.

Fixed in EasyList: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/859abc79711aa69441e809a394677f6392b8c59a

If I have noticed a new ad, to which list should I report a filter issue? Should I report the new advertisement to the issue tracker at uBlockOrigin/uAssets, or should it be reported to EasyList instead?