Host files in general

[Al Bundy]

Still getting my feet wet on spyware tools. Without starting a range war,
does it make sense to combine the frequently posted files below into the
HOSTS file?

It seems that the Hostess tool I got via this ng would do a slick job of
it. Are there draw backs to doing this?

Everyone has their favorites but like it's often said in this group, no one
source is a total solution for spyware.

http://mvps.org/
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts

[YoKenny]

Al Bundy wrote:
> Still getting my feet wet on spyware tools. Without starting a range
> war, does it make sense to combine the frequently posted files below
> into the HOSTS file?

Does not hurt.

> It seems that the Hostess tool I got via this ng would do a slick job
> of it. Are there draw backs to doing this?

No. It does its job of adding new and not adding duplicates nicely.

> Everyone has their favorites but like it's often said in this group,
> no one source is a total solution for spyware.
>
> http://mvps.org/
> http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts

And IE-SPYAD
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/resource.htm#IESPYAD

[siljaline]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>Still getting my feet wet on spyware tools. Without starting a range war,
>does it make sense to combine the frequently posted files below into the
>HOSTS file?
>
>It seems that the Hostess tool I got via this ng would do a slick job of
>it. Are there draw backs to doing this?
>
>Everyone has their favorites but like it's often said in this group, no one
>source is a total solution for spyware.
>
>http://mvps.org/
>http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts

Hi Al,

HOSTESS does *not* work with this HOSTS:
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Why? The above HOSTS has, _added comments_.
>Example: 127.0.0.1 www3.abcsearch.com #[Browseraid]

HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
HOSTS file.

NOT that I'm saying HOSTESS is not a good tool for merging, editing
HOSTS files, but on the MVPS HOSTS, it is not recommended.

HOSTS file(s) are not a complete solution, using a Spyware scanner,
SpyBot - Ad-aware, "safe hex" with your Browsing habits, a good A-V
scanner among others, do the trick.

HTH

Regards,


--
siljaline

[Robin T Cox]

siljaline <siljaline@null.com> wrote in
news:2ht2svg7mjfpfddg7vd32uiqb11p4k6hdi@4ax.com:

> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
> HOSTS file.

But that doesn't change the functionality of that hosts file, does it? The
blocklist still works just the same, because it's the entry before the
comments that really matters.

[siljaline]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:31:36 GMT, Robin T Cox <robin2803@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>siljaline <siljaline@null.com> wrote in
>news:2ht2svg7mjfpfddg7vd32uiqb11p4k6hdi@4ax.com :
>
>> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
>> HOSTS file.
>
>But that doesn't change the functionality of that hosts file, does it? The
>blocklist still works just the same, because it's the entry before the
>comments that really matters.

Hi Robin,
If you were to use HOSTESS you could *carefully* remove the added
comments - I've not done it as I prefer the comments in.

Regards,



--
siljaline

[YoKenny]

siljaline wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>> Still getting my feet wet on spyware tools. Without starting a range
>> war, does it make sense to combine the frequently posted files below
>> into the HOSTS file?
>>
>> It seems that the Hostess tool I got via this ng would do a slick
>> job of it. Are there draw backs to doing this?
>>
>> Everyone has their favorites but like it's often said in this group,
>> no one source is a total solution for spyware.
>>
>> http://mvps.org/
>> http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts

Should be:
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.zip

> Hi Al,
>
> HOSTESS does *not* work with this HOSTS:
> http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> Why? The above HOSTS has, _added comments_.
>> Example: 127.0.0.1 www3.abcsearch.com #[Browseraid]
>
> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
> HOSTS file.
>
> NOT that I'm saying HOSTESS is not a good tool for merging, editing
> HOSTS files, but on the MVPS HOSTS, it is not recommended.

The system uses the HOSTS file in a pre-defined place and discards the
comments when used. They are really there for human consumption only.

The user can download both HOSTS files to a storage folder (C:\HOSTS for
example) and use HOSTESS to merge the two. This gives the added advantage
of the protection of both files. The user can still read the unzipped file
in the storage folder for the comments.
Even if you use only one of the HOSTS files you have to download it
someplace and unzip it.

> HOSTS file(s) are not a complete solution, using a Spyware scanner,
> SpyBot - Ad-aware, "safe hex" with your Browsing habits, a good A-V
> scanner among others, do the trick.

Agreed.

[Robin T Cox]

siljaline <siljaline@null.com> wrote in
news:a2i3svscufmq04ikd4obqb4q8d2hto7768@4ax.com:

> If you were to use HOSTESS you could *carefully* remove the added
> comments - I've not done it as I prefer the comments in.
>

Hi Siljaline

OK.

When I go into my hosts file using Hostess, with File/Edit Hosts, I can
still see comments listed after the hosts entry. Presumably these are
comments that were in my original hosts file, because, as you say, comments
are not imported by Hostess.

Best Regards

Robin

[Al Bundy]

"YoKenny" <YKnot@home.invalid> wrote in
news:L9kwb.14162$X2W1.3487@news04.bloor.is.net.cab le.rogers.com:

> siljaline wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Still getting my feet wet on spyware tools. Without starting a range
>>> war, does it make sense to combine the frequently posted files below
>>> into the HOSTS file?
>>>
>>> It seems that the Hostess tool I got via this ng would do a slick
>>> job of it. Are there draw backs to doing this?
>>>
>>> Everyone has their favorites but like it's often said in this group,
>>> no one source is a total solution for spyware.
>>>
>>> http://mvps.org/
>>> http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts
>
> Should be:
> http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.zip
>
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> HOSTESS does *not* work with this HOSTS:
>> http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>>
>> Why? The above HOSTS has, _added comments_.
>>> Example: 127.0.0.1 www3.abcsearch.com #[Browseraid]
>>
>> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
>> HOSTS file.
>>
>> NOT that I'm saying HOSTESS is not a good tool for merging, editing
>> HOSTS files, but on the MVPS HOSTS, it is not recommended.
>
> The system uses the HOSTS file in a pre-defined place and discards the
> comments when used. They are really there for human consumption
> only.
>
> The user can download both HOSTS files to a storage folder (C:\HOSTS
> for example) and use HOSTESS to merge the two. This gives the added
> advantage of the protection of both files. The user can still read
> the unzipped file in the storage folder for the comments.
> Even if you use only one of the HOSTS files you have to download it
> someplace and unzip it.
>
>> HOSTS file(s) are not a complete solution, using a Spyware scanner,
>> SpyBot - Ad-aware, "safe hex" with your Browsing habits, a good A-V
>> scanner among others, do the trick.
>
> Agreed.
>


So, do I read it right that using Hostess to combine the two may render
the HOSTS file ugly but it has no effect functionally?

[YoKenny]

Al Bundy wrote:
> "YoKenny" wrote:
>> siljaline wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
<snip>
>> Should be:
>> http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.zip
>>
>>> Hi Al,
>>>
>>> HOSTESS does *not* work with this HOSTS:
>>> http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>>>
>>> Why? The above HOSTS has, _added comments_.
>>>> Example: 127.0.0.1 www3.abcsearch.com #[Browseraid]
>>>
>>> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
>>> HOSTS file.
>>>
>>> NOT that I'm saying HOSTESS is not a good tool for merging, editing
>>> HOSTS files, but on the MVPS HOSTS, it is not recommended.
>>
>> The system uses the HOSTS file in a pre-defined place and discards
>> the comments when used. They are really there for human consumption
>> only.
>>
>> The user can download both HOSTS files to a storage folder (C:\HOSTS
>> for example) and use HOSTESS to merge the two. This gives the
>> added advantage of the protection of both files. The user can still
>> read the unzipped file in the storage folder for the comments.
>> Even if you use only one of the HOSTS files you have to download it
>> someplace and unzip it.
>>
>>> HOSTS file(s) are not a complete solution, using a Spyware scanner,
>>> SpyBot - Ad-aware, "safe hex" with your Browsing habits, a good A-V
>>> scanner among others, do the trick.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
> So, do I read it right that using Hostess to combine the two may
> render the HOSTS file ugly but it has no effect functionally?

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder and Hostess has no effect on
functionality.

[YoKenny]

Robin T Cox wrote:
> siljaline <siljaline@null.com> wrote in
> news:2ht2svg7mjfpfddg7vd32uiqb11p4k6hdi@4ax.com:
>
>> HOSTESS "prunes" the comments out, thus corrupting *this* particular
>> HOSTS file.
>
> But that doesn't change the functionality of that hosts file, does
> it? The blocklist still works just the same, because it's the entry
> before the comments that really matters.

True.