hosts VS easylist

I've added the Ads & Tracking list and the AMP Hosts list from Developer Dan to the default list; any others you recommend I add? It's hard to tell if the ads coming through are a 'my blocklist isn't good enough' problem or a 'my pihole's not set up properly yet' problem.

Posthog is on developerdans "Ads & Tracking" blocklist[1], if you're wondering why this doesn't load.

[1]: https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/blob/master/docs/list...

This is how you learn. Going forward you'll start noticing some ads and some not, based on the default adlist. I think the default adlist is good enough for starting. But you should also look into developer dan's adlist and ticked firebog adlist.

Enable most of the default ones, use DNS filtering. I use Cloudflare DNS. And for some third-party filters you can load, I recommend Steven Black hosts, OISD blocklists, Developer Dan hosts and AnudeepND Blacklist.

Did you bother looking at the sticky issue that says the lists are in maintenance mode? I’m trying un-inspire confidence https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/issues/356

FYI https://github.com/lightswitch05/hosts/issues/356

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?