New Update A first look at SmartAdblock for Firefox and Chrome

[Petrovic]

We are at the v1.0.8 at the moment (with a fix for popup&switch in adult websites). Firefox is just faster than chrome at the moment at validating our updates, chrome took 10 days to validate the v1.0.7 and does not allow us to skip a version if the process takes too long. We talked with them today about that we will see if they can validate the v1.0.8 faster.

You can published it on github/gitlab... (for examle AdguardTeam/AdguardBrowserExtension )

 

[FreddyFreeloader]

www.chicagotribune.com
That website loads all manner of adverts because it disables SmartAdBlock.
UBlock Origin w/UBlock Extra loads the site ad-free.

 

[smartadblock]

www.chicagotribune.com
That website loads all manner of adverts because it disables SmartAdBlock.
UBlock Origin w/UBlock Extra loads the site ad-free.

Thanks for pointing this out, should be sorted now (you might need to disable enable the extension to refresh the filter). This one slipped out because chicago tribune stopped accepting readers from EU since the GDPR law. But we found a way, please report any other bug on our subreddit r/smartadblock or on the website (a report section is coming soon)

 

[smartadblock]

@smartadblock
why chrome extension not updated?
firefox- 1.0.8
chrome- 1.0.6
&
why it is necessary ?
https://www.trafiklite.com/smartadblock/filters/sabfilter_trans.txt

Hey guys, SmartAdBlock 1.0.9 is finally approved in Chrome Store and Mozilla Store, and we think it is a great update:

-Optimized memory usage and fixed some memory leaks to make it officially the adblocker with the lowest memory usage (with a cookie list included and a popup blocker function!) (See chart attached, more charts on smartadblock.co.uk)
-Added an options page, it is now possible to add filters or filter URLs (even if we do not advise to do so, we prefer receiving error reports and correcting it for everyone)
-Fixed the popup&switch in some adult websites
-improved speed on some particular websites where issues were reported (google maps for example)
-Slightly redesigned the popup
-Added a little loader to see when the extension is loading filters

We hope you like it!

 

[CyberTech]

The new version of SmartAdblock (1.09) it support custom filters..

Full article:

SmartAdblock updated: memory optimizations and custom filter support - gHacks Tech News

The developers of the free cross-browser adblocker SmartAdblock have released an updated version of the extension that introduces a number of improvements and optimizations.

www.ghacks.net

 

[smartadblock]

The new version of SmartAdblock (1.09) it support custom filters..

Full article:

SmartAdblock updated: memory optimizations and custom filter support - gHacks Tech News

The developers of the free cross-browser adblocker SmartAdblock have released an updated version of the extension that introduces a number of improvements and optimizations.

www.ghacks.net

it was a great article in ghacks, any suggestion of other websites who might be interested in covering smartadblock? thanks

 

[Burrito]

This looks like one to watch.

 

[Windows_Security]

@smartadblock

Okay, I first use your extension and liked it. I also noticed that it did not block some well known ad&tracking networks. Because I liked the additional functionality of blocking popups and cookie walls, I thought well you win some and loose some.

With the new option to add custom blocklists and custom Adblocker block rules, I added manually some of the ad&tracking networks missed, like newrelic, summerhamster, beemray etc

When I checked I noticed some of them were not blocked. So I thought these were typo's.

Therefore I have two additional features
a) An import of Custum block RULES from local text file (like uBlock and Adguard have now).
b) A sort of the user entered Custom block rules (IMO it is better to call these USER block rules).

I would also suggest you don't refresh & reload the custom blocklists at startup, for performance reasons. Alternatively you could use an update interval (say 48 hours, which is common in blocklist land) and refresh after some time when CPU usage is low.

BUG?
When using the || mark for anything (e.g. ||beem.ray.com) SmartAdblock seemed to ignore this custom BLOCK rule. Since many third party filters use ||before the domain name, you might want to check that.

 

[smartadblock]

@smartadblock

Okay, I first use your extension and liked it. I also noticed that it did not block some well known ad&tracking networks. Because I liked the additional functionality of blocking popups and cookie walls, I thought well you win some and loose some.

With the new option to add custom blocklists and custom Adblocker block rules, I added manually some of the ad&tracking networks missed, like newrelic, summerhamster, beemray etc

When I checked I noticed some of them were not blocked. So I thought these were typo's.

Therefore I have two additional features
a) An import of Custum block RULES from local text file (like uBlock and Adguard have now).
b) A sort of the user entered Custom block rules (IMO it is better to call these USER block rules).

I would also suggest you don't refresh & reload the custom blocklists at startup, for performance reasons. Alternatively you could use an update interval (say 48 hours, which is common in blocklist land) and refresh after some time when CPU usage is low.

View attachment 208793


BUG?
When using the || mark for anything (e.g. ||beem.ray.com) SmartAdblock seemed to ignore this custom BLOCK rule. Since many third party filters use ||before the domain name, you might want to check that.

Thanks for this feedback, we take note of all your remarks, and we will use them for the next version.
For your blocking rules you need to follow strictly the adblock plus syntax which means that blocking a domain requires a line that looks like:

||bounceexchange.com^$third-party

 

[Windows_Security]

Thanks for this feedback, we take note of all your remarks, and we will use them for the next version.
For your blocking rules you need to follow strictly the adblock plus syntax which means that blocking a domain requires a line that looks like:

||bounceexchange.com^$third-party

I use(d) AdGuard with Peter Low's blocklist only. I know you block 75% of the list below, but you might take a look at it.

I used the adblock rule syntax as far as I am aware of, but some would not be blocked when using the || in front of the domain name, strangely I had no problem with the others (even when copying and pasting from my list attached).

NOTE maximal effect, minimal rules cont this is my preferred set:

https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=adblockplus&showintro=1&mimetype=plaintext (Peter Low)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lists.disconnect.me/simple_ad.txt (Disconnect Simple Ad, overlaps with PL's for 80%)

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anarki999/Adblock-List-Archive/master/Better.fyiTrackersBlocklist.txt

 

[smartadblock]

I use(d) AdGuard with Peter Low's blocklist only. I know you block 75% of the list below, but you might take a look at it.

I used the adblock rule syntax as far as I am aware of, but some would not be blocked when using the || in front of the domain name, strangely I had no problem with the others (even when copying and pasting from my list attached).

Ok I had a look at the list and my guess is the following: when you block ||example.com^ means that you block that domain but not necessarily the subdomains, so requests of the type https://abcf.example.com would be blocked but not the requests that look like https://abcd..efgh.example.com I am not 100%sure it is the case you are discussing but usually it is a source of a lot of misunderstandings. It is how the syntax of adblockplus is meant to work, if you want to disable all subdomains you need a different syntax using wildcards.

But if you have a particular case - domain request I am happy to look in more detail.

 

[Windows_Security]

Ok I had a look at the list and my guess is the following: when you block ||example.com^ means that you block that domain but not necessarily the subdomains, so requests of the type https://abcf.example.com would be blocked but not the requests that look like https://abcd..efgh.example.com I am not 100%sure it is the case you are discussing but usually it is a source of a lot of misunderstandings. It is how the syntax of adblockplus is meant to work, if you want to disable all subdomains you need a different syntax using wildcards.

But if you have a particular case - domain request I am happy to look in more detail.

??? source https://adblockplus.org/filter-cheatsheet#blocking

 

[smartadblock]

??? source https://adblockplus.org/filter-cheatsheet#blocking

View attachment 208797

yes exactly. So if we go 1 domain level up the rule ||example.com^ will block

http://example.com/foo.gif

http://server1.example.com/foo.gif

https://example.com:8000/

 

[Windows_Security]

Now I am completely lost. When you say it works it works (since you wrote the software) and when I am not using the pipe || it seems to work as I expect (so there is nothing to complain or discuss about). thx

 

[smartadblock]

Now I am completely lost. When you say it works it works (since you wrote the software) and when I am not using the pipe || it seems to work as I expect (so there is nothing to complain or discuss about). thx

yes but when you are not using the pipe you are by default using a wildcard syntax, it is not advised, for example the name of the domain could come later in a request, for example google.com/search?q=bounceexchange.com and that would be blocked. So the right syntax is double pipe and proper subdomain targeting.
That's why we advise people to report things and to let us write the filters

 

[smartadblock]

By the way we could use some help promoting smartadblock, and you could help us if you know where we could get an article or simply by rating it on the chrome or firefox store. Thanks

 

[Moonhorse]

Currently smartadblock seems to be more effective than ublock with default filters and has lower memory footprint

I think im gonna run the extension for now , ublock origin disabled since it seems you fixed problems it had....well done

I challenge other members to try this extension out aswell. Im running this extension along with Trace

 

[smartadblock]

Currently smartadblock seems to be more effective than ublock with default filters and has lower memory footprint

I think im gonna run the extension for now , ublock origin disabled since it seems you fixed problems it had....well done

I challenge other members to try this extension out aswell. Im running this extension along with Trace

Thanks Moonhorse hope you re still using it!

we have released the v1.1.0 on chrome and firefox with few code improvements. We have reduced the average number of regex performed to validate requests resulting in a faster adblocker and reduced cpu usage.
Please let us know if you can help us publish an article about smartadblock.

 

[Windows_Security]

You might check the Dutch translation, because it seems reversed

Text in red should be "deactiveren Smartblock ..etc" Text in green should be "activeren Smartblock ...etc"


Also the text in black is strange (it translates to English as "SmartAdBlock is blocked 1 request". So better to change it "SmartAdBlock blokkeert 1 verzoek" (meaning SmartAdBlock blocks 1 request" or alternative text in Dutch could be "SmartAdBlock is actief en blokkeert 1 verzoek" meaning in English SmartAdBlock is active and blocks 1 request).

 

[smartadblock]

You might check the Dutch translation, because it seems reversed
View attachment 210023


Text in red should be "deactiveren Smartblock ..etc" Text in green should be "activeren Smartblock ...etc"


Also the text in black is strange (it translates to English as "SmartAdBlock is blocked 1 request". So better to change it "SmartAdBlock blokkeert 1 verzoek" (meaning SmartAdBlock blocks 1 request" or alternative text in Dutch could be "SmartAdBlock is actief en blokkeert 1 verzoek" meaning in English SmartAdBlock is active and blocks 1 request).

Thanks for spotting this, it will be fixed in the next version.