Rated 3 out of 5 stars

I access numerous sites well in the hundreds on a daily basis and while this may be useful if you only access a limited number regularly it's definitely not for the masses. I am constantly finding my self allowing access to external sites to allow the site to display images, css scripts, etc. to allow the page to display correctly, etc.

This definitely could use fine tuning.

Now this would be beneficial
1. Allowing IP ranges with wildcards, like 94.100.111.* - 94.100.300.*"
2. Blacklist instead. I find my self wanting to black list sites far less than whitelisting. Here is a good example of sites that require to much to figure out what is what: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2450216 and which policy to set. It would be easier to "Allow from site.com" and then go back and select specific sites to blacklist instead or the option to continue to whitelist individual if one prefers.

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.5.25.1-signed.1-signed). 

Thanks for your feedback. I've recently released an alpha version of RequestPolicy 1.0 which includes a blacklist mode. That is, it defaults to allowing requests and you can choose to "block requests from foo.com to bar.com". That's actually going to be the default mode in 1.0 and advanced users can switch to default-deny through the preferences. If you want to try it out, it's here: https://www.requestpolicy.com/1.0.html

Rated 2 out of 5 stars

I have been using this for sometime and I do love it. However, I am starting to find it cumbersome for some sites; i.e pinterest.

For this site to work and not having to accept a request policy for each redirect back to an image one has to just select "Allow requests from [the current site]" vs "Allow requests from [the current site] to [the other site]". What would be nice is to select "Allow requests from [the current site]" but on all the sites that have been allowed be able to go back and select specific ones like the google-anallytics and choose "Forbid requests to [the other site]"

any possibilities or am I missing something?

This review is for a previous version of the add-on (0.5.25.1-signed.1-signed).