[ ijbswa-Bugs-3423274 ] Unblock reason is ignored by CGI

Bugs item #3423274, was opened at 2011-10-13 18:55
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dg1727
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=111118&aid=3423274&group_id=11118

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: funct: cgi
Group: None
>Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: dg1727 (dg1727)
Assigned to: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Summary: Unblock reason is ignored by CGI

Initial Comment:
Privoxy 3.0.17 on Xubuntu 11.04, no other firewalls/proxies, Firefox 7.0.1

The CGI page http://config.privoxy.org/show-url-info?url=... seems to ignore "unblock reasons."  Suppose the following is in an actionsfile:  
{-block{why_we_need_this_URL}}
This just appears on the CGI page as "{-block}".  

It would be nice if the "why_we_need_this_URL" could be shown in the CGI page.  Thanks.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: dg1727 (dg1727)
Date: 2011-10-15 16:54

Message:
It sounds like you are proposing that:  
1.  In the future, Privoxy can be modified so that an actionsfile syntax
error causes Privoxy to do something graceful like logging a message
(instead of what Privoxy does now, which is to halt on startup); 
2.  After that time (or in the same release), Privoxy can be modified to
treat "unblock reasons" as syntax errors; 
3.  Even later, Privoxy may be modified to accept "unblock reasons."  

That is, you aren't suggesting that Privoxy should treat an "unblock
reason" as a syntax error before item 1 above, since that might cause some
users' Privoxy setups to fail because they have unknowingly used unblock
reasons.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2011-10-14 12:36

Message:
It's not the CGI page that is ignoring the "unblock reason", but Privoxy
itself is skipping it when loading the action file.

In general parameters for actions that aren't disabled aren't documented
to work and have no defined meaning.

The current undefined behavior is that they are silently ignored, but this
would change once TODO list item #22 is implemented at which point Privoxy
would start to complain about the syntax error.

I agree that supporting "unblock reasons" would be even better, but
implementing them would require a non-trivial amount of changes to
Privoxy's action logic and given the length of our TODO list, I'm not sure
that the time would be well spent.

I'll have to think about it some more, but at the moment I think treating
"unblock reasons" as the syntax error they are is the way to go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=111118&aid=3423274&group_id=11118

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct