"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?