[FEATURE REQUEST] Have a neutral state between blocked and allowed

[RonSijm]

I would like to request a neutral, default state for items. Just like noscript.
This way you could explicitly block sites you do not want: shittyadnetwork.com

That way when you visit a new site its easier to determine what isnt "evil": static.cdn.something.com

By having an explicit black list, you should be able to switch between whitelist and blacklist mode: Allow by default / block by default

[kiwidude]

That way when you visit a new site its easier to determine what isnt
"evil": static.cdn.something.com

The problem with that approach is that by the time you have found
something is evil, it's already too late and you have passed on your
pivacy to evildoers.

But working out which sites are blocked where on the page can be tricky;
requestpolicy's user interface needs improving. It would be useful if it
was clearer what was being blocked where (easy only for images), and the
"other origins on this page" menu is too well hidden. It's frequently
essential to use it.

And especially together with noscript trying to find out what needs to
be unblocked can result in reload-orgies.

Volker bloggs7@top.geek.nz

[CorvusCorax]

This is where an additional "blacklist" would come in handy. The default of request policy is already to block, which is good, but it would help if there were the ability to 'hide' or 'mark' certain domains that are common and clutter the list. If I browse an unknown site and am missing images and styles and then look at a 20 entries long list of red URL's in requestpolicys list, it would already be a big help if stuff like doubleclick, google analystics, and so on were hidden, or marked grey at the far botton of the list, such limiting the decision which to allow across the entries unknown to the user.

additional information to the type of feature included from which blocked domain would also be helpful for the user, maybe a little icon behind the domain entry indicating "styles" "images" "flash" "script" "ajax" ... depending on the url and inclusion type of the content blocked. that way it would be much easier to distinguish domains required for the proper functioning of the site from domains providing advertisement banners or tracking features

I don't think an allow by default would be a good idea for privacy concerns (but it might help users using request policy as an ad blocker which certainly is not its primary purpose but due to the privacy invading ways of the ad industry it does an excellent job at)

[RonSijm]

The problem with that approach is that by the time you have found something is evil, it's already too late and you have passed on your pivacy to evildoers.

You could leave the default to blocked as well. That way you would basically have three categories: Allowed, Blocked (default), Blocked (explicit)
This makes it easier to see new, unknown items on sites, instead of having a list of 20 entries all blocked by default.

Also, when its allowed by default, sure, you'd pass your privacy to evildoers, once. I could still come with a pop thing, like no-script, and for example ask what to do with google-analitics.com. It doesn't really matter that much if they tracked you once. But it does make the browsing experience of novice users a lot better, while still allowing them to slowly block evil domains

[kiwidude]

The feature of hiding entries that only clutter the list but are never going to be allowed was requested in issue #389.
The main cause for the feature request in this issue is that it can be very cumbersome to find out what to unblock.