Zonealarm

Hi

Can anyone please tell me why the following code gets changed by
(presume zonealarm ) so that the browser source code reads
differently? I have no idea, only that it seems that images under a
certain pixel width and height get tagged as web bugs - even if they
arent.
It sure spoils the look of the sites using small images in their
designs.

Using xp pro with IE, Netscape and firefox,with zone alarm security
suite web bugs turned on. If i turn it off, all is well, however it
is a problem that other people may not know to do this, and the site
will look a real mess.

Tia

Kitty

re: Zonealarm

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kitty <forget@it.com> writing in
news:h3fa51h0o8va4qb2hu1memp2lg4i72c41t@4ax.com:
[color=blue]
> Hi
>
> Can anyone please tell me why the following code gets changed by
> (presume zonealarm ) so that the browser source code reads
> differently? I have no idea, only that it seems that images under a
> certain pixel width and height get tagged as web bugs - even if they
> arent.
> It sure spoils the look of the sites using small images in their
> designs.
>
> Using xp pro with IE, Netscape and firefox,with zone alarm security
> suite web bugs turned on. If i turn it off, all is well, however it
> is a problem that other people may not know to do this, and the site
> will look a real mess.
>
> Tia
>
> Kitty
>
>
>[/color]

I have Kerio firewall, and it puts "Add Blocked By KFC". My hosts file
also blocks a lot of ads and images. As a matter of fact, I changed my 404
page to read, "Doh! The website is not found!", so I'm used to not seeing
some images, and I don't miss them at all. Both of those methods probably
also remove "bugs" as well.

I know that firewalls and ad blockers look for certain criteria, size,
image name and URL. For example, <img
src="http://www.doubleclick.net/banner.gif" width="468" height="60"> would
fulfill all three and certainly be blocked. Your only options, I would
imagine, would be to size the images so they are not flagged that way, or
to advise your visitors that some images may be construed as bugs and if
the visitor wants to see them, then turn off the firewall.
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

re: Zonealarm

Thanks!

I have found plenty of info on this subject, but never been able to
find the specific criteria

Here the code for some of the images witch want show. Is there any
other way to get around this problem?

<td align="center" colspan="5"><img src="img/top.gif" width="519"
height="51"></td>

and

<p class="text12"><img src="img/paint.jpg" width="260" height="131"
border="1">


Thanks again!!


On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:33:02 GMT, Adrienne <arbpen2003@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kitty <forget@it.com> writing in
>news:h3fa51h0o8va4qb2hu1memp2lg4i72c41t@4ax.com :
>[color=green]
>> Hi
>>
>> Can anyone please tell me why the following code gets changed by
>> (presume zonealarm ) so that the browser source code reads
>> differently? I have no idea, only that it seems that images under a
>> certain pixel width and height get tagged as web bugs - even if they
>> arent.
>> It sure spoils the look of the sites using small images in their
>> designs.
>>
>> Using xp pro with IE, Netscape and firefox,with zone alarm security
>> suite web bugs turned on. If i turn it off, all is well, however it
>> is a problem that other people may not know to do this, and the site
>> will look a real mess.
>>
>> Tia
>>
>> Kitty
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>I have Kerio firewall, and it puts "Add Blocked By KFC". My hosts file
>also blocks a lot of ads and images. As a matter of fact, I changed my 404
>page to read, "Doh! The website is not found!", so I'm used to not seeing
>some images, and I don't miss them at all. Both of those methods probably
>also remove "bugs" as well.
>
>I know that firewalls and ad blockers look for certain criteria, size,
>image name and URL. For example, <img
>src="http://www.doubleclick.net/banner.gif" width="468" height="60"> would
>fulfill all three and certainly be blocked. Your only options, I would
>imagine, would be to size the images so they are not flagged that way, or
>to advise your visitors that some images may be construed as bugs and if
>the visitor wants to see them, then turn off the firewall.[/color]

re: Zonealarm

Kitty wrote:[color=blue]
> Thanks!
>
> I have found plenty of info on this subject, but never been able to
> find the specific criteria
>
> Here the code for some of the images witch want show. Is there any
> other way to get around this problem?[/color]

The code snippets provided provide no indication about why the images
fail to load. It helps if you provide a URL so we can actually look at
the document to see if they do load or not, and then work from there.
However, there are plenty of other markup problems I can assist you with.
[color=blue]
> <td align="center" colspan="5"><img src="img/top.gif" width="519"
> height="51"></td>[/color]

The align attribute is deprecated in favour of CSS. However, its
presence, the large colspan value combined with the fact that this cell
contains an image named "top.gif" without any alternate text, suggests
that you are, more than likely, using tables for layout. Stop it! Mark
up your document semantically, using tables for tabular data only and
use CSS for style and layout.

The image also requires alternate text to be specified. Given that it's
a layout table, and it's named top.gif, it would appear that it's
nothing more than presentation. In which case, you should set the alt
attribute to alt="". If it is more than just presentation, the alt text
should serve the same purpose as the image for user agents where images
are unavailable.
[color=blue]
> <p class="text12"><img src="img/paint.jpg" width="260" height="131"
> border="1">[/color]

This image (and any others in your document) also needs alt text to be
specified.

The border attribute is deprecated also, it should be specified using CSS.

The class attribute on the p element seems odd. It doesn't appear to
have any useful semantic meaning, and while it's not actually specifying
exact presentation, the need for numbered classes is rare. Although, it
is difficult to tell for sure, but you should evaluate whether it is
simply being used as a presentational hook, or whether it actually has
some semantic relevance.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox