Which anti-spyware softwear?

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:30:35 -0700, Gerald309 <gerald309@gmail.com>
wrote:

>This article gives you the exact information :
>
>The Top Three
>http://bluecollarpc.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=228
>
>There are more here - actual professional reviews - *not* user reviews
>sometimes called "newbie press hype"....

One post on a web forum and I am supposed to take that seriously? I
don't pay for anti-spyware software and I never get bit in the ass.
Here's what I use and it's all free.

MVPS Hosts File
Spywareblaster
Spybot S&D
Super Anti Spyware
Lavasoft Adaware
A-Squared
AVG
Firefox with noscripts plugin

Do all that and you won't get bit either.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:au5393hr86o0m3a8a2e6b6p40ctu17kaek@4ax.com...
> Here's what I use and it's all free.
>
> MVPS Hosts File

> ...

I never use a hosts file where it redirects "bad" hostnames to the
localhost (which presumably isn't running a web server). Why? Because
it is far too easy to create placeholder hostnames at a domain that
change at-will so the hosts file will never be up to date. The MVPs
hosts file has around 52 entries just for DoubleClick when I checked a
couple months ago. That's ridiculous. Many of these spam sites are now
accepting ANY hostname at their domain so a hosts list would have to be
infinite in size (okay, not infinite but extremely huge) to encompass
every possible hostname at that domain. Rather than their DNS server
rejecting the lookup on a hostname, they simply return the IP address
for their boundary server host for all DNS requests.

A hosts file demands a fully qualified name (FQDN) for the host, like
www.domain.com or a1bfd.otherdomain.com. You cannot use wildcarding or
just specify the domain to redirect (to localhost) all connects to that
domain. A few firewalls permit wildcarding in the URL filtering. Much
easier to filter on "/*.doubleclick.*/" than on 52 different and unique
entries in a hosts file which has to be periodically updated to account
for Doubleclick adding yet another hostname.

Another problem with a hosts file is that the site to which you connect
but are trying to block their ads from these "bad" site can see that you
blocked those ads. Because the HTML code you get contains the URL to
the advertiser's site, your browser is expected to go retrieve the
content at that URL. The site you visit knows your IP address. The ad
server also knows your IP address *if* you retrieve their content. If
the web site you visit and the ad site don't see that your IP address
accesses both pages within a short interval, like a few seconds, the
visited site doesn't get an acknowledgement from the ad server showing
your IP address visited there. The visited site then refuses to show
you its content because you blocked the ads.

To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in
your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
ones that you left in the box.

[cmsix]

"Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote in message
newstWdnV19P4-KKQzbnZ2dnUVZ_uKknZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Gladiator" wrote in message
> news:au5393hr86o0m3a8a2e6b6p40ctu17kaek@4ax.com...
>> Here's what I use and it's all free.
>>
>> MVPS Hosts File
>
>> ...
>
> I never use a hosts file where it redirects "bad" hostnames to the
> localhost (which presumably isn't running a web server). Why? Because it
> is far too easy to create placeholder hostnames at a domain that change
> at-will so the hosts file will never be up to date. The MVPs hosts file
> has around 52 entries just for DoubleClick when I checked a couple months
> ago. That's ridiculous. Many of these spam sites are now accepting ANY
> hostname at their domain so a hosts list would have to be infinite in size
> (okay, not infinite but extremely huge) to encompass every possible
> hostname at that domain. Rather than their DNS server rejecting the
> lookup on a hostname, they simply return the IP address for their boundary
> server host for all DNS requests.
>
> A hosts file demands a fully qualified name (FQDN) for the host, like
> www.domain.com or a1bfd.otherdomain.com. You cannot use wildcarding or
> just specify the domain to redirect (to localhost) all connects to that
> domain. A few firewalls permit wildcarding in the URL filtering. Much
> easier to filter on "/*.doubleclick.*/" than on 52 different and unique
> entries in a hosts file which has to be periodically updated to account
> for Doubleclick adding yet another hostname.
>
> Another problem with a hosts file is that the site to which you connect
> but are trying to block their ads from these "bad" site can see that you
> blocked those ads. Because the HTML code you get contains the URL to the
> advertiser's site, your browser is expected to go retrieve the content at
> that URL. The site you visit knows your IP address. The ad server also
> knows your IP address *if* you retrieve their content. If the web site
> you visit and the ad site don't see that your IP address accesses both
> pages within a short interval, like a few seconds, the visited site
> doesn't get an acknowledgement from the ad server showing your IP address
> visited there. The visited site then refuses to show you its content
> because you blocked the ads.
>
> To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
> everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
> (i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
> seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
> content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
> unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of their
> page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in your
> browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
> placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web site
> that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
> eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page. It
> is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates, opening
> the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you don't like,
> and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the ones that you
> left in the box.

It is possible for them to deny you a view of their site for not visiting
their adsite, but I've never seen it. If you look at sites that use double
click and others, you'll see that those ads arent the only ones on the page.
You'll also often see the unreachable content get a substitute add when the
download fails.

The sites want you to come by hosts file or not. If they didn't you couldn't
get to their site at all without accepting the add content.

cmsix

>

[Gladiator]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:05:52 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:


>To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit and
>everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad revenue
>(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't like
>seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit the
>content of their site, they have the right to not show you that content
>unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
>their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed in
>your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
>placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
>site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
>eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
>It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
>opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
>don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
>ones that you left in the box.

It's my computer and I'll block anything I want.

[Vanguard]

"Gladiator" wrote in message
news:ve4693hc8t7nutvkrco7heuhtsee2bmdap@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:05:52 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>To be fair, it is THEIR site, not yours, and the cost of your visit
>>and
>>everyone else's to allow free access to that site may rely on ad
>>revenue
>>(i.e., ad space or click-throughs). Don't visit there if you don't
>>like
>>seeing advertisements. Just as you believe you have a right to edit
>>the
>>content of their site, they have the right to not show you that
>>content
>>unless you see ALL of it. They can even screw up the formatting of
>>their page to make it difficult to read unless the ads are displayed
>>in
>>your browser (i.e., the space for the ad is different than for the
>>placeholder). Blocking their ads can result in a non-sustainable web
>>site that disappears because of users like yourself. Not going there
>>eliminates their cost in resources to supply you with their web page.
>>It is very much like going to the store to buy a box of chocolates,
>>opening the box while in the store, tossing out all the ones that you
>>don't like, and then claiming you should only have to pay only for the
>>ones that you left in the box.
>
> It's my computer and I'll block anything I want.


It's their site so don't ***** when they decide not to let you see any
of it. Now I know why some of the books I get from the library have
torn out pages and polluted with highlighted lines.

[Gladiator]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:44:15 -0500, "Vanguard" <no@mail.invalid>
wrote:


>It's their site so don't ***** when they decide not to let you see any
>of it. Now I know why some of the books I get from the library have
>torn out pages and polluted with highlighted lines.
>
I've never been blocked from viewing any website. I do have other OS's
installed that don't use the hosts file to block ad servers and
malicious websites so it is not an issue for me. My main OS uses the
host file though and I will continue to use it.