I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers,
imanc

On 13/05/2013 19:25, imanc wrote:
I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers,
imanc




Polyfilla or even plaster will be fine. Ideally you should still have
two fixing screws into wallplugs, but with suitable filler you can get
away with one or even none. Finish plaster is slightly less good because
of shrinkage.

The other trick if you have two good screw fixings is to pack behind the
box with suitable slivers of wood so that the box is square when screwed
down.

On Monday 13 May 2013 19:25 imanc wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill

To a fixed depth? I wrapped tape around my drill as a depth marker when
doing this.

then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!


I had the same problem on the odd occasion - when too enthusiastic with the
SDS or the bricks were a bit crap. Mix a bit of 4:1 mortar and lob it in the
back of the hole. Bed the box in to this. If you add a bit around the side
you can not bother with the fixing screw(s).


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 13/05/2013 20:54, Tim Watts wrote:
On Monday 13 May 2013 19:25 imanc wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill

To a fixed depth? I wrapped tape around my drill as a depth marker when
doing this.

then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!


I had the same problem on the odd occasion - when too enthusiastic with the
SDS or the bricks were a bit crap. Mix a bit of 4:1 mortar and lob it in the
back of the hole. Bed the box in to this. If you add a bit around the side
you can not bother with the fixing screw(s).

I keep an old bag of bonding plaster for such occasions... slap it in,
it goes off quick.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:25:22 +0200, imanc wrote:

There's a lumpy mess and some cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm,
and the back box doesn't seat right.

Get one fixing ready, lob in some stiffly mixed old plaster, push in box
and use fixing. position and leave.

With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

Is that a problem? You can get longer accessory screws if the ones you
have are too short.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

I'd not pepper pot, just closely drill around the edge to a consistent
depth. It's easier to cut big bits out of a solid mass rather than one
full of holes.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:25:22 +0200, imanc
wrote:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

Use a deeper back box!

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
imanc wrote:
I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

Quick set cement.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...ter/index.html

--
*Pentium wise, pen and paper foolish *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/05/13 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
imanc wrote:
I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.
I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?
Quick set cement.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...ter/index.html

car body filler, then replaster. with luck no screws needed. :-)


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

I've no idea if this in an approved method (and rather suspect that it
isn't) but I've mounted several sets of backboxes-in-a-row by first screwing
them to a wooden backplate and then putting the whole assembly into a
slightly oversized hole partially pre-filled with plaster/cement/mortar/what
have you.

The beauty of this approach is that it ensures that the boxes, and therefore
the front plates, are all perfectly in line and evenly spaced - something I
could never achieve when I used to do it one box at a time.

imanc writes:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

I've had better results with an SDS chisel than when I tried drilling
then hand chiselling, but still not perfect. However with a metal back
box it's sometimes possible to put a large metal repair washer (or 2)
behind one of the box mounting holes. Quick and easy, if not ideal.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Frank Erskine writes:

On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:25:22 +0200, imanc
wrote:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

Use a deeper back box!

Or do as some professionals (?) have done and just take care not to
attach the socket too tightly (which might crack it).

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Windmill wrote:

You can set the boxes in gunnanail or nomorenails. Bend the unused
knock-outs in slightly so there's a key for the adhesive. No need for
screws.

Bill

On May 13, 7:25*pm, imanc wrote:
I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. *With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers,
imanc

--
imancAds not by this site

Tap all the knockouts in the box in very slightly and set the box in
the hole with cement. Leave the knockout(s) you want to use
clear of cement. Make sure the threaded holes for your
switch/socket are clear of cement.

Yeah you can use all sorts of stuff for this. Once when younger and still
sighted I just bunged in some filler, then the box, levelled it up and held
it in the right spot with tape till filler dried, took it apart and drilled
the holes for the plugs. Its still up.
I guess its like, what the eye does not see....

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"newshound" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 13/05/2013 19:25, imanc wrote:
I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers,
imanc




Polyfilla or even plaster will be fine. Ideally you should still have two
fixing screws into wallplugs, but with suitable filler you can get away
with one or even none. Finish plaster is slightly less good because of
shrinkage.

The other trick if you have two good screw fixings is to pack behind the
box with suitable slivers of wood so that the box is square when screwed
down.

On 13/05/2013 21:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/05/2013 20:54, Tim Watts wrote:
On Monday 13 May 2013 19:25 imanc wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill

To a fixed depth? I wrapped tape around my drill as a depth marker when
doing this.

then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!


I had the same problem on the odd occasion - when too enthusiastic
with the
SDS or the bricks were a bit crap. Mix a bit of 4:1 mortar and lob it
in the
back of the hole. Bed the box in to this. If you add a bit around the
side
you can not bother with the fixing screw(s).

I keep an old bag of bonding plaster for such occasions... slap it in,
it goes off quick.


Industry standard IME. I guess that's why our electrical wholesaler has
it stacked by the front door.

Bert Coules wrote:
I've no idea if this in an approved method (and rather suspect that it
isn't) but I've mounted several sets of backboxes-in-a-row by first
screwing them to a wooden backplate and then putting the whole
assembly into a slightly oversized hole partially pre-filled with
plaster/cement/mortar/what have you.

The beauty of this approach is that it ensures that the boxes, and
therefore the front plates, are all perfectly in line and evenly
spaced - something I could never achieve when I used to do it one box
at a time.

Do you want a job?

The only difference is that I mount the wooden board to the wall and then
fit the back boxes.

--
Adam

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:25:22 +0200, imanc wrote:

There's a lumpy mess and some cracked brick that is stil somewhat
firm, and the back box doesn't seat right.

Get one fixing ready, lob in some stiffly mixed old plaster, push in
box and use fixing. position and leave.

With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

Is that a problem? You can get longer accessory screws if the ones you
have are too short.


Having the back box set 3mm behind the plaster finish is the correct way to
install back boxes for use with flat plate switches and sockets.

--
Adam

stuart noble wrote:
On 13/05/2013 21:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 13/05/2013 20:54, Tim Watts wrote:
On Monday 13 May 2013 19:25 imanc wrote in uk.d-i-y:


I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted
the area with the drill

To a fixed depth? I wrapped tape around my drill as a depth marker
when doing this.

then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and
some cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box
doesn't seat right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too
deep. I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting
the back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would
do a much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be
appreciated!

I had the same problem on the odd occasion - when too enthusiastic
with the
SDS or the bricks were a bit crap. Mix a bit of 4:1 mortar and lob
it in the
back of the hole. Bed the box in to this. If you add a bit around
the side
you can not bother with the fixing screw(s).

I keep an old bag of bonding plaster for such occasions... slap it
in, it goes off quick.


Industry standard IME. I guess that's why our electrical wholesaler
has it stacked by the front door.

Bloody good stuff that out of date bonding.

--
Adam

Excellent - seems anything can work - grab adhesive, mortar, cement, bonding and car body filler ha ha

I was worried that I was somehow revealing my DIY ineptitude but by the number of responses it seems a common issue.

I've just bought some quick setting cement and will get 'em sorted tomorrow before the spark comes to check my handiwork and laugh his ass off.

Thanks all!

On 13/05/2013 19:25, imanc wrote:

I'm trying to fit 4 25mm back boxes into walls. I've pepper potted the
area with the drill then used a cold chisel to clear out the plaster and
brick. However, the result is not smooth. There's a lumpy mess and some
cracked brick that is stil somewhat firm, and the back box doesn't seat
right. With one recess the back box is about 5mm too deep.

I'm wondering if I can build up the chase with some polyfilla or
something to make it straight and the right depth before fitting the
back box?

I know that an SDS drill with correct chiselling attachment would do a
much neater job, but I don't have one to hand.

I've got 3 more holes to chisel out so any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers,
imanc




Yeah or pack it with a piece of wood or what ever you have lying around.
I've used old lino tiles before from my box of shims.

--
http://trimley.com/weather/

On 14/05/2013 22:05, imanc wrote:

Hey Folks,

Is anyone noticing a weird ad appearing intermittently the first time
you load this site? I've seen a few times a weird add appearing with a
popup. It seems unlikely that it's a sponsor - as it's hawking some sort
of software.


Er, diybanter.com is ONLY an advertising site, nothing else.

The articles you are seeing on that web site are mainly posted to the
Usenet uk.d-i-y newsgroup and nothing to do with diybanter.



--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 14/05/2013 22:05, imanc wrote:

Hey Folks,

Is anyone noticing a weird ad appearing intermittently the first time
you load this site? I've seen a few times a weird add appearing with a
popup. It seems unlikely that it's a sponsor - as it's hawking some sort
of software.

Not seeing "ads not from this site" appearing anywhere by any chance?

http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-...-by-this-site/


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Yeh I'm a web dev and I spent a week removing malware from a site which manifested in the same way. Hence wondering if its' something others have seen. My computer is definitely not compromised, and I only see the add appear intermittently the on diybanter.com.

On May 14, 10:48*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/05/2013 22:05, imanc wrote:



Hey Folks,

Is anyone noticing a weird ad appearing intermittently the first time
you load this site? *I've seen a few times a weird add appearing with a
popup. It seems unlikely that it's a sponsor - as it's hawking some sort
of software.

Not seeing "ads not from this site" appearing anywhere by any chance?

http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-...-by-this-site/

--

Thanks. That fixed my problem too.
In my case the malware was called "dealboat".

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 14, 10:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 14/05/2013 22:05, imanc wrote:



Hey Folks,

Is anyone noticing a weird ad appearing intermittently the first time
you load this site? I've seen a few times a weird add appearing with a
popup. It seems unlikely that it's a sponsor - as it's hawking some sort
of software.

Not seeing "ads not from this site" appearing anywhere by any chance?

http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-...-by-this-site/

--

Thanks. That fixed my problem too.
In my case the malware was called "dealboat".

On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

On 15/05/2013 16:39, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

No hit on bandwidth with adblock et al, but you still have the same
privacy issues, and the browser is still titting about running an add on
that you can do without.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:39:09 +0100, Eric wrote:

John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.

Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Yep, stops a lot. My Hosts file is currently 240,000 - DNS service needs to
be disabled or else loading takes a long time.

Useful little proggy for working on Hosts file:
http://hostsman.softpedia.com/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 16:39, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

No hit on bandwidth with adblock et al, but you still have the same
privacy issues, and the browser is still titting about running an add on
that you can do without.

Hosts is not a browser add on. If you're running a decent pc, the
performance hit isn't going to be a problem.

PeterC wrote ...


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Yep, stops a lot. My Hosts file is currently 240,000 - DNS service needs to
be disabled or else loading takes a long time.

Jeez. I've been running one of over 10 years and it's less than 36k.
You'll probably find that many of the urls in your list no longer exist.
M$, FBI etc are forever closing sites.


Useful little proggy for working on Hosts file:
http://hostsman.softpedia.com/

On 15/05/2013 17:41, PeterC wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:39:09 +0100, Eric wrote:

John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.

Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Yep, stops a lot. My Hosts file is currently 240,000 - DNS service needs to
be disabled or else loading takes a long time.

Useful little proggy for working on Hosts file:
http://hostsman.softpedia.com/


OpenDNS does a fair job of blocking malicious sites and takes little
extra resources on the PC.
You may even find that your router will use OpenDNS if you tell it to.

On 15/05/13 19:53, Eric wrote:
PeterC wrote ...


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Yep, stops a lot. My Hosts file is currently 240,000 - DNS service needs to
be disabled or else loading takes a long time.
Jeez. I've been running one of over 10 years and it's less than 36k.
You'll probably find that many of the urls in your list no longer exist.
M$, FBI etc are forever closing sites.

oh FFS the reason DNS was INVENTED was to get rid of hosts files.

run your own DNS server and put the blacklists into that.

Useful little proggy for working on Hosts file:
http://hostsman.softpedia.com/



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 2013-05-15, John Rumm wrote:

On 15/05/2013 16:39, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

No hit on bandwidth with adblock et al, but you still have the same
privacy issues, and the browser is still titting about running an add on
that you can do without.


Ghostery?

On 15/05/2013 17:46, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 16:39, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

No hit on bandwidth with adblock et al, but you still have the same
privacy issues, and the browser is still titting about running an add on
that you can do without.

Hosts is not a browser add on.

Yes we know that...

the adware (WebSerach, SaveAs, Coupon Comander etc) is the add on...

If you're running a decent pc, the
performance hit isn't going to be a problem.

That would be a woosh then...

Define problem?

Extra addons you don't need - especially those not extensively deployed
tested and reviewed, will likely introduce instability in the browser.
They will make it slower to load, use more memory etc. Even if your
hosts file is successfully blocking access to the ads they are trying to
display, are you sure it is also blocking personal information they
collect and try to "phone home"?

To me it makes far more sense to make sure your browser is not
compromised in the first place, and that there are no unwanted
extensions installed in it, than it does to let the problem fester and
just try to hide the symptoms.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/05/2013 20:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2013-05-15, John Rumm wrote:

On 15/05/2013 16:39, Eric wrote:
John Rumm wrote ...


On 15/05/2013 09:02, Brian Gaff wrote:

I have ad blocking software in all my browsers, preserves sanity.

Kind of, however that does not stop these pesky add ons from still
requesting all sorts of ad data - even if the blocker prevents it from
being downloaded or displayed you are still suffering a performance hit
and potentially a data leak as a result of having one there. The main
difference is you don't get to experience the symptoms.


Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

No hit on bandwidth with adblock et al, but you still have the same
privacy issues, and the browser is still titting about running an add on
that you can do without.


Ghostery?

or Malwarebytes AntiMalware and a number of others...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 15/05/2013 20:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/05/13 19:53, Eric wrote:
PeterC wrote ...

Use a Host file. Malware/ad sites are blocked. No hit on bandwidth.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Yep, stops a lot. My Hosts file is currently 240,000 - DNS service
needs to
be disabled or else loading takes a long time.
Jeez. I've been running one of over 10 years and it's less than 36k.
You'll probably find that many of the urls in your list no longer exist.
M$, FBI etc are forever closing sites.

oh FFS the reason DNS was INVENTED was to get rid of hosts files.

run your own DNS server and put the blacklists into that.

Or better, use a dynamic blacklist so you don't have to update it...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/