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.