"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

>