New update for MVPS hosts file

[hazelnut]

New updates today for the MVPS hosts file .

 

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

[Eldmannen]

Wonder why it points to 127.0.0.1 which is loopback instead of 0.0.0.0

 

Having a large hosts file doesn't seem like a very good idea. Disabling the cache will make every new DNS request perform a DNS lookup instead of just check the cache, which will increase network activity, and sending and getting a reply will take a couple milliseconds.

 

I am not sure hosts file is a good idea.

[krit86lr]

Well E, I disagree! I think that host files are great. Especially for people who have unsafe surfing habits. They really do provide good security.

[hazelnut]

Also this info was to provide host file users with the info that there was an update.

 

People who use a hosts file have already made their mind up on whether it is useful or not.

[JDPower]

Anyone know why the hosts file gives "Page could not be displayed" messages in place of everything it blocks?

[Eldmannen]

Well, fact is, the use of a host file is not an optimal solution.

 

Open a command prompt, type "telnet 127.0.0.1".

Watch the delay, it is because the computer tries to connect to itself to see if a port is open.

 

Now type "telnet 0.0.0.0".

And you will see there is no delay at all.

 

So the host file should point to 0.0.0.0 but incorrectly points the domains to 127.0.0.1 which is the loopback address. This causes a delay and unnecessary usage of resources. Not to mention if you were running a webserver, its log file would be full of junk.

 

 

When using a big host file, looking through the cache takes too long time, so the sites recommends you to disable the DNS cache service. When you do that, your computer has to resolve every domain into a IP address by querying the DNS server. This causes unnecessary network usage/load, unnecessary load on the DNS server and due to round-trip times of packets taking longer time than locally looking up something in a small cache, it results in a slower web experience.

 

Also, filtering ads with a host file is difficult, because the advertising companies often have a dozen of different subdomains to advertise from. Example ads1.example.com ads2.example.com ads3.example.com, etc. It is much more efficient to capture all in a regexp using the Adblock extension for Firefox.

 

Anyone know why the hosts file gives "Page could not be displayed" messages in place of everything it blocks?

 

That is a dumbed down message from Internet Explorer, I believe. It says the page could not be displayed but does not really go much further into stating why. Your computer looked up the domain name in the host file and was told it pointed to the IP address 127.0.0.1 which is the loopback address. Subsequently your computer tried to connect to to port 80 on your own computer instead of the computer corresponding to the blocked domain. The attempted connection were of type TCP to localhost (127.0.0.1) at port 80. No HTTP daemon was running on localhost so it couldn't establish a connection. Hence the connection failed and the page could not be displayed.

[TeeJay3800]

Thanks for the FYI about the update. I updated the file using HostsMan for the first time and it worked perfectly!

[TeeJay3800]

Wonder why it points to 127.0.0.1 which is loopback instead of 0.0.0.0

Actually, using HostsMan you can change from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0. I'm not exactly sure why you would do that, but its there!

[Glenn]

Anyone know why the hosts file gives "Page could not be displayed" messages in place of everything it blocks?

 

If you want to avoid that message and (supposedly) speed things up, you can use eDexter by Pyrenean. It acts as a localhost webserver to supply images of your choice in place of those blocked. I use eDexter with a 64 byte blank image because I hate having "The page cannot ..." all over the screen.

 

Homer 1.1 by Funkytoad supposedly does the same.

[JDPower]

If you want to avoid that message and (supposedly) speed things up, you can use eDexter by Pyrenean. It acts as a localhost webserver to supply images of your choice in place of those blocked. I use eDexter with a 64 byte blank image because I hate having "The page cannot ..." all over the screen.

 

Homer 1.1 by Funkytoad supposedly does the same.

 

Thanks

[res45]

Anyone know why the hosts file gives "Page could not be displayed" messages in place of everything it blocks?

 

I'm not sure why it used that particular wording just like Adblocker used the adblock tab over it blocked ads. Anyways I use the little program called Homer which places just a blank white space or a colored icon or anything of your choice jpeg. bitmap, or icon in its place.

 

http://www.funkytoad.com/content/view/14/32/

 

EXAMPLE

[Andavari]

I always thought it was better to use a very small say 1x1 pixel transparent image like a clear.gif file, or clear.png file. That's what I used to use with CookieCop (when I used to use it) and it didn't mess up how a page was displayed, nor were their any goofy looking Adblock Plus images plastered on various pages.

[Glenn]

I'm not sure why it used that particular wording ...

"The page cannot be displayed ... " (in IE) is the built in DNS error message. When the hosts file redirects to 127.0.0.1, it can't find a image to download so defaults to the same error message you would get if the site couldn't be found.

 

I always thought it was better to use a very small say 1x1 pixel transparent image like a clear.gif file ...

That's the default in eDexter (what I meant by "64 byte blank"). Homer probably can do the same.