Remove AdGuard CNAME-Cloaked Trackers

[Yuki2718]

They're periodically imported to EP with problematic domain removed, so it's no need, and even worse does casue trouble. I could reproduce part of trouble in https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/8#issuecomment-824651314 if the list is enabled on uBOL. This is their stance about the list: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/8#issuecomment-824698453.

[SampeiNihira]

The "AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list" (it would probably be better to rename this list) contains more CNAME rules than "EP" and also than "AdGuard Tracking Protection filter." Even if it breaks a few websites the protection from CNAME trackers is greater.

P.S.

But I understand that in the absence of inserting exception rules it can become a big problem.

[SampeiNihira]

• Would it be problematic for a user who does not want broken websites to deselect the list?

• Or select the "no filtering" option for the specific broken website?

Personally I don't care that much,but if asked I would consider removing the list unnecessary.

[Yuki2718]

it would probably be better to rename this list

Yes, as "ANY cname of some tracking vendor's domain list regardless if tracker or not". It has some additional click-through tracker which few user would ever come across while the rest does not enhance privacy, more of a false sense of privacy.

[MasterKia]

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/73c50a4077f879d46e2cde79eecf00c61980c3ab

It should be removed from the extension description on the Chrome store as well. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh

[gorhill]

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/65a3cddf9509a190c97a056457e1e94c1290a8d6

[gorhill]

The list is gone in 0.1.22.12266.

[SampeiNihira]

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/75

I ask if it is possible to reconsider this choice considering the news listed by Shavaleleka.

[Yuki2718]

Any decision will be made by actual benefit to all user based on real-world usage than to some geeks' satisfaction. The major reason of

contains more CNAME rules

is exactly https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers/issues/51 , there's little difference in actual tracking protection in which some user would never get any benefit (the biggest factor other than browsing habit here is region). Besides, removing microsites/landing pages/clickthrough domains does not completely solve the afformentioned or known problems as some breakage don't fall into any of the catogory, though I admit they're the most common problems.

Reminder: there is an upper-limit in the number of availabel lists in MV3.

[SampeiNihira]

The CNAME combined_disguised_ads.txt filter list has only 23202 total rules:

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

P.S. I did a test by entering only EasyPrivacy and the CNAME ads list in UBO. The CNAME list maintains all the rules. And only 7 rules from the EasyPrivacy list evidently are surplus:

[Yuki2718]

@SampeiNihira If you're not aware, disguised_ads is not included in EP, EL, or AGTPF. It's included only in AG Base. This does not mean uBO with standard settings is not protected against them - we have many generic and regex rules to catch them; however, none of these is perfect and even disguised_ads list occasionally fails as these cname adservers are rapid changer (can't find an example issue, GH search is trh). Perfect protection comes only by DNS (uBO on Firefox, AG apps with DNS filtering, or other DNS solution). But a question is who needs that - un**like cname tracker which is impossible not to encounter, cname adservers are almost exclusively used on pirate sites, dubious streaming & porn sites, and some link shortner.

[SampeiNihira]

I understand your point of view Yuki. And excuse me for these interventions of mine that may annoy. I only wish to bring to your attention a more general point of view that is shareable with a wide audience of your possible users.

Conclusion. My only example is due to the fact that with UBO Lite you cannot select the basic AG filter list. With this intervention,I conclude. You of course act as you see fit. Good evening to you all

[Yuki2718]

Well, I guessed misunderstanding so added explanation, that's all - if I ever feel annoying, I'm free to say so or ignore. Sorry if my comments sounded authoritative. The only thing I wanna correct is your possible users - uBO is from the beginning "By user, for user" - it's not someone's property. All of us, even gorhill, are just user and the project is maintained by those user spending some time for all user. I hope uBOL does not suffer the same fate as uMatrix for which too many people only demanded features without contributing back.