><H3
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
-NAME="AEN1081"
+NAME="AEN1076"
>5.1. I cannot connect to any websites. Or, I am getting
<SPAN
CLASS="QUOTE"
><H3
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
-NAME="AEN1104"
+NAME="AEN1099"
>5.3. I just added a new rule, but the steenkin ad is
still getting through. How?</A
></H3
><A
NAME="MACOSXUNINSTALL"
>5.8. In Mac OS X, I dragged the Privoxy folder to the trash in order to
- uninstall it. Now the finder tells me I don't have sufficient privileges to
+ uninstall it. Now the finder tells me I don't have sufficient privileges to
empty the trash.</A
></H3
><P
> Note: This ONLY applies to privoxy 3.0.6 and earlier.
</P
><P
-> Just dragging the <SPAN
+> Just dragging the <SPAN
CLASS="APPLICATION"
>Privoxy</SPAN
> folder to the trash is
- not enough to delete it. <SPAN
+ not enough to delete it. <SPAN
CLASS="APPLICATION"
>Privoxy</SPAN
> supplies an
CLASS="APPLICATION"
>uninstall.command</SPAN
> file that takes care of
- these details. Open the trash, drag the <SPAN
+ these details. Open the trash, drag the <SPAN
CLASS="APPLICATION"
>uninstall.command</SPAN
>
- file out of the trash and double-click on it. You will be prompted for
+ file out of the trash and double-click on it. You will be prompted for
confirmation and the administration password.
</P
><P
><P
> This can be caused by a problem with the local <TT
CLASS="FILENAME"
->HOSTS</TT
+>hosts</TT
>
file. If this file has been changed from the original, try reverting it to
see if that helps. Make sure whatever name(s) are used for the local system,
that they resolve both ways.</P
+><P
+> You should also be able to work around the problem with the
+ <A
+HREF="../user-manual/config.html#HOSTNAME"
+TARGET="_top"
+>hostname option</A
+>.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
>Privoxy</SPAN
>
merely initiates the process and hands it off, and then later reports
- whatever the outcome was. And tries to give a coherent message if there seems
+ whatever the outcome was and tries to give a coherent message if there seems
to be a problem. In some cases, this might otherwise be mitigated by the
browser itself which might try some work-arounds and alternate approaches (e.g
adding <SPAN
>Privoxy's</SPAN
> page filtering
mechanism is trying to match against absurdly long strings and this becomes
- very CPU-intensive, taking a long, long time to complete. Until a better
- solution comes along, disable filtering on these pages, particularly the
- <TT
+ very CPU-intensive, taking a long, long time to complete.</P
+><P
+> Until a better solution comes along, disable filtering on these pages,
+ particularly the <TT
CLASS="LITERAL"
>js-annoyances</TT
-> and <TT
+> and
+ <TT
CLASS="LITERAL"
>unsolicited-popups</TT
->
- filters.</P
+> filters. If you run into this problem
+ with a recent <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+> version, please send a problem report.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
it does not happen. I would suspect some inadvertent interaction of software
components such as anti-virus software, spyware protectors, personal
firewalls or similar components. Try disabling (or uninstalling) these one
- at a time and see if that helps.</P
+ at a time and see if that helps. Either way, if you are using a
+ recent <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+> version, please report the problem.</P
></DIV
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
TARGET="_top"
>prevent-compression</A
>.</P
+><P
+> As of <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+> 3.0.9, zlib support is enabled in the default builds.</P
+></DIV
+><DIV
+CLASS="SECT2"
+><H3
+CLASS="SECT2"
+><A
+NAME="SSL-WARNINGS"
+>5.21. On some HTTPS sites my browser warns me about unauthenticated content,
+ the URL bar doesn't get highlighted and the lock symbol appears to be broken.
+ What's going on?</A
+></H3
+><P
+> Probably the browser is requesting ads through HTTPS and <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+>
+ is blocking the requests. Privoxy's error messages are delivered
+ unencrypted and while it's obvious for the browser that the HTTPS
+ request is already blocked by the proxy, some warn about unauthenticated
+ content anyway.</P
+><P
+> To work around the problem you can redirect those requests to an invalid
+ local address instead of blocking them. While the redirects aren't
+ encrypted either, many browsers don't care. They simply follow the
+ redirect, fail to reach a server and display an error message instead
+ of the ad.</P
+><P
+> To do that, enable logging to figure out which requests get blocked by
+ <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+> and add the hosts (no path patterns) to a section like this:</P
+><P
+><TABLE
+BORDER="0"
+BGCOLOR="#E0E0E0"
+WIDTH="100%"
+><TR
+><TD
+><PRE
+CLASS="SCREEN"
+>{+redirect{http://127.0.0.1:0/} -block -limit-connect}
+.ivwbox.de:443/</PRE
+></TD
+></TR
+></TABLE
+></P
+><P
+> Additionally you have to configure your browser to contact
+ <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"127.0.0.1:0"</SPAN
+> directly (instead of through <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy</SPAN
+>).</P
+><P
+> To add a proxy exception in <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Mozilla Firefox</SPAN
+>
+ open the <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"Preferences"</SPAN
+>, click the <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"Settings"</SPAN
+>
+ button located on the <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"Network"</SPAN
+> tab in the <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"Advanced"</SPAN
+>
+ section, and add <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"127.0.0.1:0"</SPAN
+> in the <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"No Proxy for:"</SPAN
+>
+ field.</P
+></DIV
+><DIV
+CLASS="SECT2"
+><H3
+CLASS="SECT2"
+><A
+NAME="SE-LINUX"
+>5.22. I get selinux error messages. How can I fix this?</A
+></H3
+><P
+> Please report the problem to the creator of your selinux policies.</P
+><P
+> The problem is that some selinux policy writers aren't familiar
+ with the application they are trying to <SPAN
+CLASS="QUOTE"
+>"secure"</SPAN
+> and
+ thus create policies that make no sense.</P
+><P
+> In <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy's</SPAN
+> case the problem usually
+ is that the policy only allows outgoing connections for certain
+ destination ports (e.g. 80 and 443). While the standard ports
+ maybe covered, websites occasionally use other ports as well.
+ This isn't a security problem and therefore <SPAN
+CLASS="APPLICATION"
+>Privoxy's</SPAN
+>
+ default configuration doesn't block these requests.</P
+><P
+></P
></DIV
></DIV
><DIV
projects / privoxy.git / blobdiff