From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16421138A2F for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E728DE1574; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.5]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618EBE13FC for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.69.80.10] (helo=wstn.localnet) by smarthost01c.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XAaPy-0005tQ-FU for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:59:54 +0000 From: Peter Humphrey To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] acroread woes Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:59:53 +0100 Message-ID: <2649586.p5FGBjf73B@wstn> Organization: at home User-Agent: KMail/4.12.5 (Linux/3.12.21-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Originating-smarthost01c-IP: [82.69.80.10] X-Archives-Salt: 36d904b6-de38-4f72-bb6a-5e36aff18fcd X-Archives-Hash: 1d880e01036f4b3f782972fda50d76b7 On Wednesday 23 July 2014 14:48:08 James wrote: > I also run "noscript" on my browsers now (very cool!). I do not consider it > a problem, when I have to click a button or 2 to allow something > that noscript has identified and filtered as a possilbe point > of caution. I like noscript and have little desire to permanently > disable it, so suggestions must work reasonable well with noscript too. I used to run noscript, and was often annoyed and frustrated on e-commerce sites when a page refused to load. I'd have to tell the script (!) to allow this new site, then go back and try again, which often required more data input - or even starting again from scratch. Nowadays I have "yesscript", which claims to be more intelligent about blocking scripts. You might like to give it a whirl. -- Regards Peter