confused about hosts file

[cmsix]

"Vanguard" <vanguard@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:elbr76$nq2$1@aioe.org...
> "louise" <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4tse7jF15l0mkU1@mid.individual.net...
>> I'm getting sick and tired of removing the same tracking cookies
>> everytime I run an antispyware program.
>>
>> So I started looking at the host file at mvp.org. But the notes
>> say that any hosts file larger than 135kb will slow down win XP.
>> The MVP hosts file is almost 500 kb.
>>
>> What should one do? Might I just add the things that are
>> consistently picked up in my antispyware? Is there a smaller hosts
>> file that is still considered valuable?
>
>
> Get a cookie manager so you can whitelist which domains are allowed
> to leave their cookies on your host and all others will get purged.
> Even IE has cookie management with Allow and Block lists so I would
> think FireFox would have better cookie management. Maybe not.
> Problem is that some sites won't work unless you allow them to write
> a cookie .txt file. A cookie manager that whitelists the domains
> should allow the cookie to appear while you are visiting a site but
> purge the non-whitelisted cookies when you exit your browser. That
> way you can keep the 1st party cookies that you want, block all 3rd
> party cookies, and allow non-whitelisted cookies during your visit
> but they will get deleted. If you are using Firefox, why not just
> go into it and configure the cookie management there by setting the
> Keep Cookies option to "until I close FireFox"? Put the whitelisted
> domains in the exceptions list. I don't use Firefox but that info
> was pretty easy to find (that is, Google works).
>
> If you use a huge hosts file, disable the DNS Client service (which
> caches DNS queries into a local cache but slows down using the hosts
> file). Wildcarding or truncation are not allowed in a hosts file.
> That is, the IP name must be a full name. You can't just specify a
> domain and then have all hosts at that domain blocked but instead
> have to list every host at that domain. When I last looked at the
> MVPS hosts file, there were 52 entries just for DoubleClick. Now
> there are 72. Doubleclick, or anyone, can actually used a
> randomized hostname on their boundary host to circumvent hosts
> files; i.e., they will accept any hostname name so you'll never be
> able to reasonably list all permutations in a hosts file. The size
> of the hosts file makes it unmanageable to the user so you are
> relinquishing control to whomever built the hosts file; i.e., you
> are letting someone else decide where you can and cannot go, and you
> could later find that you'll be asking why you cannot get to a
> particular site because you don't actually manage your hosts file so
> you haven't a clue as to where you chose to have someone else block
> you (you'll forget about the hosts file). I gave up using the hosts
> file long ago. Now it is just used to let me use IP names, like
> SpamPal instead of 127.0.0.1, when configuring accounts in e-mail
> clients, for example, so I remember what I'm doing in the
> configuration. There are better solutions than using a hosts file,
> especially for cookie management.

Thank you for that very useful information. It wasn't directed at me
but I appreciate seeing it.

cmsix

>

[louise]

cmsix wrote:
>
> "Vanguard" <vanguard@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:elbr76$nq2$1@aioe.org...
>> "louise" <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4tse7jF15l0mkU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> I'm getting sick and tired of removing the same tracking cookies
>>> everytime I run an antispyware program.
>>>
>>> So I started looking at the host file at mvp.org. But the notes say
>>> that any hosts file larger than 135kb will slow down win XP. The MVP
>>> hosts file is almost 500 kb.
>>>
>>> What should one do? Might I just add the things that are
>>> consistently picked up in my antispyware? Is there a smaller hosts
>>> file that is still considered valuable?
>>
>>
>> Get a cookie manager so you can whitelist which domains are allowed to
>> leave their cookies on your host and all others will get purged. Even
>> IE has cookie management with Allow and Block lists so I would think
>> FireFox would have better cookie management. Maybe not. Problem is
>> that some sites won't work unless you allow them to write a cookie
>> .txt file. A cookie manager that whitelists the domains should allow
>> the cookie to appear while you are visiting a site but purge the
>> non-whitelisted cookies when you exit your browser. That way you can
>> keep the 1st party cookies that you want, block all 3rd party cookies,
>> and allow non-whitelisted cookies during your visit but they will get
>> deleted. If you are using Firefox, why not just go into it and
>> configure the cookie management there by setting the Keep Cookies
>> option to "until I close FireFox"? Put the whitelisted domains in the
>> exceptions list. I don't use Firefox but that info was pretty easy to
>> find (that is, Google works).
>>
>> If you use a huge hosts file, disable the DNS Client service (which
>> caches DNS queries into a local cache but slows down using the hosts
>> file). Wildcarding or truncation are not allowed in a hosts file.
>> That is, the IP name must be a full name. You can't just specify a
>> domain and then have all hosts at that domain blocked but instead have
>> to list every host at that domain. When I last looked at the MVPS
>> hosts file, there were 52 entries just for DoubleClick. Now there are
>> 72. Doubleclick, or anyone, can actually used a randomized hostname
>> on their boundary host to circumvent hosts files; i.e., they will
>> accept any hostname name so you'll never be able to reasonably list
>> all permutations in a hosts file. The size of the hosts file makes it
>> unmanageable to the user so you are relinquishing control to whomever
>> built the hosts file; i.e., you are letting someone else decide where
>> you can and cannot go, and you could later find that you'll be asking
>> why you cannot get to a particular site because you don't actually
>> manage your hosts file so you haven't a clue as to where you chose to
>> have someone else block you (you'll forget about the hosts file). I
>> gave up using the hosts file long ago. Now it is just used to let me
>> use IP names, like SpamPal instead of 127.0.0.1, when configuring
>> accounts in e-mail clients, for example, so I remember what I'm doing
>> in the configuration. There are better solutions than using a hosts
>> file, especially for cookie management.
>
> Thank you for that very useful information. It wasn't directed at me but
> I appreciate seeing it.
>
> cmsix
>
>>
>
It was actually directed at me and it was very helpful.
Duh....I knew about the cookie file in FF but I never
connected using it with the problem I was trying to address.
I've set it up and changed the preference to clear when I
close FF except for what is whitelisted.

It's also clear that I don't want such a large hosts file
and that it has to be large if it's going to be effective.
So thanks for clarifying that as well.

Louise