Speeding up internet browsing

[scuzzman]

Caution: Before editing any files it is incredibly important to make a backup. This cannot be stressed enough. Repeat: Always make a backup before editing any files!

That said - on to the guide!

A lot of times, internet browsing is slowed by name resolution. This can be overcome by putting the ip addresses into a "hosts" file.

"What is a hosts file?" you might ask...

You probably know that computers communicate via networks and the internet by ip address. A hostname, for instance windowsforum.org, is simply an alias for said ip address. When Windows needs to know how to access resources on a remote client, it first looks into the hosts for for that ip address. If not found, it moves on to querying the DNS servers for an ip. This step can be eliminated by putting your favorite hosts into your hosts file.

On Win2k/XP computers, the hosts file is typically found here:

C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc

First, BACK UP THE HOSTS FILE BY MAKIING A COPY NAMED hosts.old OR SOMETHING SIMILAR

Open this file by Right-clicking, and selecting "Open With..."

Select Notepad from the list.

You'll come up to something like this:

# Copyright (c) 1993-1999 Microsoft Corp.
#
# This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows.
#
# This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each
# entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should
# be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host 
#name.
# The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one
# space.
#
# Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual
# lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol.
#
# For example:
#
#      102.54.94.97     rhino.acme.com          # source server
#       38.25.63.10     x.acme.com              # x client host

127.0.0.1       localhost

In this file, everything with a hash mark (#) in front is a comment. At the bottom, add this line:

209.67.217.28  windowsforum.org

This will tell Windows, and subsequently your browser, that windowsforum.org is located at 209.67.217.28 - hence speeding up browsing. Save this by going to File -> Save

and check to see if browsing has sped up a bit.

"But how do I get the ip address of my favorite sites?"

The simple answer: ping. Go to "Start->Run"

type

cmd

and you'll come to the Windows command prompt. at that prompt, type this:

ping YOUR_FAVORITE_WEBSITE

replacing YOUR_FAVORITE_WEBSITE with the name of the site, such as google.com

It will return back with

reply from ***.***.***.***

along with some other data that, for now, is irrelevant. That ***.***.***.*** is the ip address of the web site. Simply add it in this fashion:

IP_ADDRESS  SITE_NAME

WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - This could mess up your internet connection. MAKE SURE TO BACKUP THE HOSTS FILE BEFORE EDITING IT!

NOTE: On DOS-based systems (Win9x-Me) instead of cmd, you'll go to Start->Run and type

command

If by chance you didn't follow my instructions exactly, simply replace the hosts file with notepad (be sure to save it without a file extension, with the information above in the code lines.

If by chance, this stops working, most likely the website changed its IP address. This is an easy fix. Remove that site's line from the hosts file using the same method you used to add it, then, ping the site and re-add with the proper ip address :)

Enjoy!

[nellie2]

Nice Scuzzman!

There is a nice hosts file reader and editor available here. Written and developed by toadbee of Gladiator Security Forums

[scuzzman]

Cool nell - I'll check it out as soon as I can (haven't got a Windows box online yet, and don't wanna reboot this one :D )

[yogivishnu]

I am a newbie and keen on HOSTS.

I have ME installed on my computer.I am using Opera instead of IE. I also have a) kerio 2.5.1 B) McAfee AV c)Proxomitron d) DNSKong e) edexter installed.

I have created a hosts file which is presently being used to block spyware etc. How to add my favourites sites to it is my problem . The RUN > CMD option does not work on ME.Which is the easiest way to do it . Can anyone out there explain.

thanks in advance.

[Sir Radfordin]

yogivishnu - try start/run/command and see if that gets you were you want to be.

[scuzzman]

Sorry for that, the guide's been edited accoringly. As SR said, simply replace "cmd" with "command"

[king-of-no-pants]

On XP isnt the hosts file in C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc? (you have C:\windows\drivers\system32\etc listed)

[scuzzman]

On XP isnt the hosts file in C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc?  (you have C:\windows\drivers\system32\etc listed)

Thanks - you're correct... typo.

It's been edited accordingly.

[APK]

Note to those that use a custom HOSTS file for added speedups via blocking out adbanners (or, sites that are KNOWN to be malicious)

This posting in this thread will make a point about that particular use of a HOSTS file (for security, AND added speed, allowing you basically, a "no commercials/HBO Internet") that I made in the guide I wrote you folks have here (&, you'll like it, because it shows a SUPERIOR method of doing so, vs. the "std. one", & yields a more efficient structure on disk & in RAM too (DNS local cache), & YET OFFERS THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY (a more efficient engine basically):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & yes, VISTA + make it "fun to do", via CIS Tool Guidance:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.windowsforum.org/index.php?showtopic=33716

(In that URL's/post's section about using HOSTS files for security, AND SPEED)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you block out, say, either adbanner OR sites that are known to be malicious (when given that information from REPUTABLE SOURCES ONLINE, & that post covers many above, from the likes of the "RBN" (russian business network, look them up online, as they are behind a HUGE percentage of attacks & malicious javascript adbanners + pages & more online the past few years now))?

Don't use 127.0.0.1, but instead, use 0.0.0.0

( ... & for a COUPLE OF GREAT REASONS (do the math, you'll understand, & it's not "calculus integrations" level math either, but very simple to understand))

1.) By using 0.0.0.0, which is SMALLER than 127.0.0.1 (by the 1st 2 characters in the first "octet"), you read the HOSTS file up off disk, into RAM (your local DNS cache)

2.) Also, by using said smaller "blocking octet" IP address? You occupy LESS RAM as well, since the entire structure is smaller (especially if you have literally 1,000's of entries in it (e.g.-> Mine has 55,000++ entries for example, & thus, I have saved 110,000 bytes)

:)

Do consider it, because it works for greater efficiency in RAM (via less memory occupancy in your local DNS cache) & more initialization of the system speed (because the file's considerably smaller on disk)...

(Also, iirc? Since you are now fielding requests using a "null port" in 0.0.0.0, vs. your LOCALHOST address (127.0.0.1), this takes up LESS CPU POWER & IP Stack work as well, since 0.0.0.0 is basically automatically just outright rejecting the request from URL's equated to 0.0.0.0, whereas by way of comparison, using 127.0.0.1 actually DOES make the system have to look @ it first, rather than just immediate rejection ala like doing a copy (filename) > NUL (which is basically what 0.0.0.0, is, a NUL port for your IP stack)).

APK

P.S.=> Also, sometimes (& this doesn't always happen, but has been reported too on the version of Windows I use, Windows Server 2003), you MAY have to implement this registry hack, to make SURE the HOSTS file's IP Address - TO - URL equations take effect (vs. local DNS servers, your ISP/BSP DNS servers, or WINS-NetBIOS mechanics):

HOW TO CHANGE NAME RESOLUTION ORDER ON Windows 9x - VISTA

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/139270/EN-US

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\ServiceProvider]

"DnsPriority"=dword:00000032

"HostsPriority"=dword:00000010

"LocalPriority"=dword:00000005

"NetbtPriority"=dword:00000064

(LOWER NUMBERS HERE = GREATER PRIORITY)

As you can see, I give my LOCAL DNS Cache the greatest priority (because it has my HOSTS file loaded into it @ system startup (IP stack startup, actually)), & THEN, my custom adbanner blocking/speedup fav sites (which this post is showing folks how to do, & yes, it works) is next, & then my ISP/BSP's DNS servers, & lastly NetBios/WINS stuff (which I just plain do NOT use, because I have no LanManager style network running here, ONLY Tcp/IP)... anyhow, there 'tis, hope you all understand, use, & LIKE this one, because... "it just works!" for greater speed, AND SECURITY, online today (especially today in the "era of the poisoned DNS server & malicious adbanner")... apk

[APK]

Per my last post, instructing others in a method of HOSTS file entries that are more efficient, per using 0.0.0.0 vs. 127.0.0.1?

There IS an EVEN MORE EFFICIENT STRUCTURE (leading IP octet structure): using plain "0" (zero)...

E.G.'s :

127.0.0.1 www.whatever.com (largest/most inefficient)

0.0.0.0 www.whatever.com (next largest, more efficient)

0 www.whatever.com (smallest AND MOST EFFICIENT)

:)

* The last one, using plain zero (vs. those other non-broadcastable IP's such as the loopback adapter)? WORKS TOO!

(... & is smaller on disk (leading to faster/quicker load time up from disk) AND in memory (once the file is loaded into memory in your system's local DNS cache))...

APK

[Scarecrow Man]

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

0 vs 2130706433 - why is 2130706433 better? because it points somewhere (2130706433 = 0x7F000001 = 127.0.0.1), whereas 0 points to nowhere.

Does a 10-digit number takes longer to be read from the disk than a 1-digit number? Probably not; it depends on the size of your hosts file, and the cluster size of your partition. Since the whole file has to be read anyway, I think using 0 instead of 2130706433 will take longer on the name server lookup. Either way, we are talking microseconds, and of a file that is read only once during Windows startup.

0 is an invalid IP address, and should therefore not be used.

Long live 2130706433!

[APK]

0 vs 2130706433 - why is 2130706433 better? because it points somewhere (2130706433 = 0x7F000001 = 127.0.0.1), whereas 0 points to nowhere.

For BLOCKING OUT say, bad adbanners, OR, sites KNOWN to be MALICIOUS?

0 works as well as 0.0.0.0, & 127.0.0.1 (both of which also more-or-less, also point to 'nowhere', but, in the case of the loopback adapter, your system does expend some efforts afaik, because it is doing a 'loopback', whereas I am fairly sure 0 or 0.0.0.0, do not)

HOWEVER - they ALL yield the SAME FUNCTIONALITY though (ability to block things out).

Remember though: 1 entry HAS to have 127.0.0.1 & that is LOCALHOST...

I think using 0 instead of 2130706433 will take longer on the name server lookup

For blocking though? I do NOT want to even HIT a DNS server...

(I mean, on a minimum, say to your ISP? That's burning 30ns both ways, 60ns total... sometimes, more!)

This you may have to 'hack' the Windows Registry for, & I list the hack in my "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA, + make it 'fun to do', via CIS Tool Guidance" post here on this site... (editing) it is above, also, in my 1st post in THIS thread too.

Albeit, 0 is the smallest, & therein lies the "hidden benefits"... smaller = faster loadtime from disk, for one thing, less diskspace I don't need to waste, is yet another (to have the same functionality).

I.E. -> The file ends up smaller, & with a HOSTS file like I use? Huge savings there!

E.G. -> I went from 20mb (using 127.0.0.1), to 17mb (using 0.0.0.0), down to 13mb (using 0)... over 578,000 entries, it made QUITE a savings, for speed of load, IF anything... As well as not wasting diskspace, on a file that doesn't HAVE TO BE AS BLOATED ON DISK, for this purpose (blocking).

(The physics & logic of it are plain to see... especially in my case).

Either way, we are talking microseconds

Well... imo, @ least? Especially IF you're a "performance fiend", as I am (or think of myself as one in computing & cars)?

Every bit helps, for performance - a mustache for instance? Is "GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS" since they are only tiny hairs, but together? Noticeable... (lol, man... I could not think of a better example just now, so bear with me)

and of a file that is read only once during Windows startup.

Untrue: What IF you disable/enable your connection? It has to reinit... AND, it's NOT "fully fired up" then yet either, until you call out to the net... XP/Server2003/VISTA behave this way (quicker boot time, illusion MS took from Apple in fact)... 2000 however, (as do NT variants before it), DOES fully "fire it up", @ boot.

-----

7mb saved = 30% savings, over the original filesize, @ 20mb, when viewed in terms of %'s...

... & 7mb less loadtime!

(Also, I am pretty sure this holds true in RAM too, once the file is loaded into your LOCAL DNS cache @ Windows startup (part of the PnP stack since XP + Server 2003 & VISTA do this, 2000 loads fully prior to logon) & your first internet bound app calling out to it, fires up the IP stack, fully then)...

Thus, the "hidden benefit"? Is that 0 is only 1 character... 0.0.0.0 is 7 characters, & 127.0.0.1 is 9 characters - taking a GIANT HOSTS file like mine (probably biggest there is, fully normalized & built from reliable/reputable sources I listed)?

Well - Look @ the savings I achieved, & YET, I have all the same valuable function - ability to block bad sites/addresses, but via "better gas mileage" yet, with SAME POWER LEVELS (turbo baby)... the numbers are here above, 20mb down to 13mb, & all I can say is:

Cliche - Argue w/ the numbers!

(I guess - Try to think of it as "economic turbo technology", for a HOSTS file... Smaller... yet, yielding the same function, loading from disk faster & occupying less RAM even... A MORE EFFICIENT STRUCTURE, YIELDING THE SAME BENEFITS here)...

APK

P.S.=> Make some sense? apk

[APK]

Just watched a GREAT film: "Bruce Lee: The Dragon Story" - lol, thoght I'd share a concept w/ y'all:

* Let this post, take 1 thing away from it, per that film - via a quote from it, & right @ it's outset (close to it):

"Gung-Fu: It's MORE than a System of Fighting - It's a SYSTEM OF THOUGHT!"

:)

APK

[APK]

Additionally, in regards to this very topic?

I have built something recently (actually, it's a rebuild (much improved vs. the original) of a tool I built for myself, 7 or more years back):

APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++ SCREENSHOT:

http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/attachmen...mp;d=1214726022

:)

Back in 2002 or so, when I first created it, I felt it wasn't 'good enough' back then, & it wasn't for most folks (it lacked a great deal of "userfriendly" features in its GUI, for one thing, as it was built MAINLY for my own personal use back then) + my algorithm I was using for "normalization" (db term for removing repeat/redundant entries) was too slow - it is far faster now (100x @ least), & the application is much improved in that regard alone

Also - I felt that since HOSTS files are largely the "province of geeks", most folks wouldn't be "into them' anyhow - this apparently, & rightfully so, appears to be changing, per this thread & others like it appearing online lately (makes sense too - the threats out there today are 10x as great as in 2002).

----------

It allows you the end-user, the ability to:

1.) DO very EASY Integrating the HOSTS files of others, such as MVPS.ORG & others noted @ wikipedia, here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file (even if in other internal line-by-line formats) "scrubbed into" the MOST EFFICIENT format there is (allowing less memory &/or disk space occupancy for loading, of 0<singlespace>URL<cr+lf> ), first, & then...

2.) Speed up access to your fav sites, via 1st pinging them (so their IP Address IS up-to-date/current), & adding them to the normalized non-repeat line items list on the right above

3.) Add/remove sites from a hosts file, but by first checking for their pre-existence inside the HOSTS file on ADDS, & rejecting if there already (& adding if NOT present)

4.) Lastly, it will FULLY NORMALIZE (accurately 110%) a HOSTS file (normalize = removal of duplicates)...leaving you with one in the MOST efficient format line-wise there is (noted above, which consumes less memory & faster loadtime from disk)

----------

I am also currently adding in (once I setup the FTP server for it w/ my ISP/BSP most likely) the ability to also download a FULLY current, & normalized HOSTS file, via FTP code - saving the user the efforts in acquiring new HOSTS files from other places, & consolidating them ALL into a single fully normalized HOSTS file minus repeat entries that is fully alphabetized as well (for easier editing, even manually via notepad.exe)

----------

It has allowed me to:

A.) Take valid HOSTS file data EVERY known & respected HOSTS file there is (noted from the wikipedia link above, & also from SRI, Shadowserver, Dancho Dancheve's Blog, SpyBot S&D, Spamhaus, Phishtank, + others also, such as my own research into this area), & integrate them FIRST into a HUGE 20mb file, & then via normalization, reducing its size to 12mb currently, on disk (removing repeats which they will have between one another & sometimes inside of themselves even), reduce its size that way (1/2 the intial size almost from all that date), first...

B.) It has also made a 13mb SUPER-COMPREHENSIVE custom HOSTS file out of an intially 20++ mb sized one, from the sources above... allowing the SAME function as they offer (because their HOSTS FILES' many times using 127.0.0.1, or, 0.0.0.0 formats, instead into a MORE EFFICIENT ONE, of 0<singlespace>URL<cr+lf>)... thus, MASSIVELY reducing its size on disk & in RAM once loaded into your local DNS cache, yet offering the SAME function!

C.) Create a CUSTOM HOSTS FILE loaded with FULLY alphabetized entries into your HOSTS file (so it is easy to search thru, even via notepad.exe).

-----

* It can do the same for you as well, should you be interested in such a tool... if you are? Email me, here:

[email address removed by moderator; please do not post email addresses in public forums - use the forum's PM facility for private messages.]

& I can send back its single monolithic "1 moving part only" Win32 Portable Executable (PE) file, as an attachment in a .zip file (installation is easy, put it anyplace you like, since it is ONLY 1 "moving part" simple design)...

APK

P.S.=> I personally tend to place it in -> %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc , which is the 'stock/oem' placement area by Microsoft, for the HOSTS file itself by default (unless the DataBasePath parameter is altered here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters ) ... apk

[APK]

"PM" me if you want that app

Pat Willner:

I don't see the harm of posting my own email address (other than myself being spammed here, that is, but that's not my "important email addy", it's one I use for sharewares/freewares I do is all)... I'm the one "taking the risk' here in doing it (not really, I read mail in .txt form, unassailable in itself) & spam? There is NO stopping that.

HOWEVER, if "that's the rules" here, then so be it... I found it offensive, because I am providing a very useful tool, to those that may want it is all.

(& don't try to accuse me of posting bad programs etc., because I am not going to blow my reputation that way, period... I've appeared in this field in noted reputable publications in this field 10x over the last decade++, & do NOT intend to 'blow it' by doing something stupid (just in case you try that 'tack' with me), like putting out a malware!)

I am here to help!

NOW - you posted INCORRECT ERRONEOUS INFORMATION too, not myself.

Why do I say that?

You were so wrong above (especially about BLOCKING above, it's not even funny)!

E.G. - I mean, your stating 'calling out to DNS servers' alone, when you are BLOCKING addresses of bad sites, bad adbanners, or even adbanners in general? Way, WAY wrong... especially in a HOSTS file (that is the last thing you want to do blocking bad sites or banners).

AND, I think you did your "editing retaliation", purely out of spite, personally!

(Yes, that's my opinion - but, your being wrong, is fact, period).

APK

P.S.=> Incidentally, the number YOU USE? Is the biggest bloater of ALL, for blocking bad sites &/or bad adbanners... 0 is a LOT tinier than that 10 digit number you use, & that is even BIGGER than 127.0.0.1 (character-for-character) - using that number, you are slowing your OS initialization AND IP stack initialization quite a lot, & it geometrically progresses into SLOWER STILL, the more entries your HOSTS file has, because you use a 10 digit number (vs. even a 1 char one as I do, or even 7 char. 0.0.0.0 or 9 char. 127.0.0.1)... & computers, everything in them, happens @ the ns/ms level, so I don't see your point on that note either.

Let's use another user's testimony as to my guide's efficacy (of which HOSTS files is a LARGE part for performance & SECURITY gains on many levels, shall we? This feedback was about performance strictly though):

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=27...p;postcount=108

----------------------------------------------------------

PERTINENT/SALIENT EXCERPT-QUOTE:

----------------------------------------------------------

"Ty for that. And for the speed and security registry files you emailed to me, theres alot of things i didn't know windows could do, and my internet does seem snappier"

----------------------------------------------------------

& you can 'argue with the numbers', you'll lose, no matter what, on any sized HOSTS files, period, as to loadspeeds & memory occupancy, period... Physics alone guarantee me this, as fact...

& then, there's what user like that gent above noted too (NOTICEABLE GAINS IN ONLINE SPEEDS, not just imperceptible gains you see on online benchmarks, but instead, humanly perceiveable ones... the BEST kind, vs. your statement it would be "only microseconds"... apparently, others disagree, & their words, speak WORLDS for me alone, vs. yours above)... apk

[APK]

Here's another error you're making (ontop of thinking when you are doing blocking of bad websites/bad adbanners, & using DNS servers to do it):

Does a 10-digit number takes longer to be read from the disk than a 1-digit number? Probably not

Sorry, but, it does!

In fact, try this (IF you can code):

Load a listbox with HOSTS file data... most listboxes have this already, as a "built in Object.Property Method" affair in modern "RAD" compilers, so it is no "big trick", as long as you have a compiler & know how to use it.

First, by using a HOSTS file with 127.0.0.1!

Second, by using 0.0.0.0

Third, by using 0

(or, even that longest of all number you're utilizing)

THEN... see which one takes longest to load into said listbox.

* It will show THE MOST, with larger files naturally (which you already concede here)!

----

HOWEVER... if you have to? You can do, to see the diff. in timing if you choose NOT to use a "HUGE FILE"...

It's what I do, when I "hand-profile" code, to optimize my slowest routines!

(That is to use hi-resolution multimedia timers you register w/ the OS (better than std. timers on their 1 second resolutions granularity by default) & count the ms/ns used in loads of said data... just to prove it, to yourself - log how long EACH LOAD takes... simple stuff!)

That's part of where you are "WRONG", because it's NOT just a diskread @ the filesystem driver & block device disk driver levels, in merely only hauling the data off the diskdrive!

So, not ONLY does a filesystem driver & diskdrive have to work, hauling the file up (how you see it only), but... The OS & IP Stack also have to programmatically load the interior data, ala code that acts doubtless, something like this:

AssignFile(F1, OpenDialog1.Filename);

Reset(F1);

AssignFile(F2, windir + '\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS.txt');

Rewrite(F2);

while not Eof(F1) do

begin

Readln(F1, Ch);

Try

ListBox1.Items.Add(Ch); //HOSTS is most likely an array or datastructure in the Local DNS cache... a buffer of somekind & ALL a listbox is really? Is a sort of 'dynamic array', because it can resize... apk

finally

Writeln(F2, Trim(Ch));

end;

end;

Flush(F2);

CloseFile(F2);

end;

Flush(F1);

CloseFile(F1);

end;

Into your Local DNS cache & for the IP stack to use it.

(AGAIN - You're NOT taking THAT into account + looking @ it "hardware-side only")

... & that type of processing, or something VERY SIMILAR rather, does happen, line by line thru the HOSTS file to load into your local DNS cache (minus repeats too I have heard, but I took no chances & normalized my HOSTS file's interiors via the program above... less lines to read, = more speed/faster load + faster processing, period)!

----

Again/I.E.-> It's not just "reading the HOSTS file into RAM" for no reason, processing has to happen to... smaller data, processes F A S T E R, too! Just plain physics, & this type of experiment can lllustrate it to you... that is part (well not exact, I took a lot out I do in the program I note above) of what I actually saw, as the file got larger or smaller... & there is a diff. using smaller data (diff. blocking addresses), AS WELL AS SMALLER FILES MASS, too.

----

it depends on the size of your hosts file

That much I have already proven, in a savings on diskbloat, memory occupancy, as well as loadspeed being superior since the file is smaller... in my case? 30% smaller - 7mb less size (down from 20mb using 127.0.0.1, to 13mb using 0), & THAT is just common-sense in & of itself.

----

and the cluster size of your partition.

That helps some, but you are "going @ this" purely from a hardware perspective it seems... & there is more going on, than that hardware (diskdriver subsystem + filesystem driver) level stuff, when you load a HOSTS file - it also has to load into your local DNS cache too... per the example above, which is doubtless similar to an extent, but, a valid example, nonetheless.

----

Since the whole file has to be read anyway, I think using 0 instead of 2130706433 will take longer on the name server lookup. Either way, we are talking microseconds, and of a file that is read only once during Windows startup.

AGAIN: When blocking? YOU DO NOT WANT TO USE DNS UDP QUERIES @ ALL, period!

----

0 is an invalid IP address, and should therefore not be used.

AGAIN: When blocking?? YOU DO WANT TO USE EITHER 127.0.0.1, 0.0.0.0, or the most superior one in diskspace taken, loadspeed, & memory occupancy of 0 (zero)...

----

Long live 2130706433!

I'd reconsider that, based on ALL of the above...

:)

APK

P.S.=> By the way? I have seen you leave other folks' emails alone here, including my own... why edit mine out this time, when I am pointing out a GOOD tool folks can use? I'm no "malware maker", but... I think you KNOW that already - if you need proofs of this, I can supply that, quickly... apk

[wawa]

Thats very important indeed mate. I know why..i made a mistake for not backing up my websites index file once..and some mistake occured where i could not find the original file. Thanks to google cache i could get the backup of the index file of my website :D

[-pops-]

Active (clickable) email addresses are removed to prevent spybots scouring the forum (as they do all forums) for real contacts that they can bombard with their rubbish.

It is nothing sinister connected with you - we are doing you a favour. If you see other people's active email addresses that we have missed, please let us know.

[APK]

Active (clickable) email addresses are removed to prevent spybots scouring the forum (as they do all forums) for real contacts that they can bombard with their rubbish.

I know, which is why I stated that it'd be MY end, "taking the risk", so-to-speak, as I noted in replies prior to your own...

Mainly because I've seen my email address remain untouched in a couple posts of mine here in fact, & suddenly in this one, it was "removed", only

... & I don't need that one protected (&, I appreciate where you are coming from but, I really don't & here is why), & in fact, do NOT mind if it's out there on forums!

(See - I use that email for freeware apps I create, but, if I get emails from others that are NOT about that? Then, they get added to my personal "spam" lists, & especially IF they contain clickable links/urls in them - I actually can ADD THOSE to my "watch out" lists like my HOSTS file - especially IF they are from strangers, for instance, claiming to be the "King of the land of 'say-what'" & He has 1 million U.S. Dollars for me, etc.)

It is nothing sinister connected with you - we are doing you a favour.

Not really, for the reasons noted above... I can use emails generated by bots, against them (blocking them out, if not from hotmail.com/gmail.com etc., in email spam lists Outlook variants have, AND, if they contain clickable URL's in them, adding them to my HOSTS file, especially IF they are from "the King of the land of 'say-what'", offering me a million U.S. hard currency for whatever, etc. et al).

If you see other people's active email addresses that we have missed, please let us know.

My own is in a few of my messages, as I noted in this reply, AND in others earlier...

APK

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

APK, for the record: we do not allow email addresses to be posted in this forum for one reason only: to protect the forum members' addresses from being collected by harvesting bots. It doesn't matter if this is somebody's primary or a throw-away address - harvesting bots will not find any bounty in this forum.

Forum staff remove any address we come upon, but there is certainly a chance that we miss some, sometimes. This is when other forum members are invited to bring a post to our attention ('Report'), so that proper action can be taken.

You are free to exchange your email address with other members via the PM area, where bots cannot penetrate. I could even accept posting of an email address in the open forum space if the address is sufficiently munged (so the bots can't detect it).

[APK]

APK, for the record: we do not allow email addresses to be posted in this forum for one reason only: to protect the forum members' addresses from being collected by harvesting bots. It doesn't matter if this is somebody's primary or a throw-away address - harvesting bots will not find any bounty in this forum.

OK, but, like I stated above? At least in MY case?? I actually can USE the spam - as "off-the-wall" as that sounds... &, for "the good" (of myself, & possibly others as well, via adding them to SPAM lists I report (e.g.=> SpamHaus, &/or PhishTank) + if they have URL's in them, & many do, I add that to my personal custom HOSTS file).

Forum staff remove any address we come upon, but there is certainly a chance that we miss some, sometimes. This is when other forum members are invited to bring a post to our attention ('Report'), so that proper action can be taken.

Well, you've left my email address in other posts of mine, just letting you know.

You are free to exchange your email address with other members via the PM area, where bots cannot penetrate. I could even accept posting of an email address in the open forum space if the address is sufficiently munged (so the bots can't detect it).

It's not (mine in other posts of mine) "munged", but, no big deal. I can live w/ it being removed on the last page, & even in my other posts where I put it, + I see your point on this... question is, do you see mine?

(I think you do, & that you understand it (why "I like spam mails" believe-it-or-not), but for the "general masses", your policy does help they from being 'spammed')

APK

P.S.=> Anyways/anyhow - the main point of this post was about HOSTS files, & 0 (vs. 0.0.0.0, or 127.0.0.1, & even the LARGEST of all in the number you utilize) is the tiniest, & produces the smallest file (fastest read up off of disk, & smallest in RAM + smallest on disk) lending both less occupancy of RAM & diskspace wasted, YET, yielding the same functionality for blocking bogus sites/adbanners etc. - thus, producing an overall MORE efficient structure that lends the same benefits... per discussion on page prior to this one... apk

[APK]

Something I ran into the other day on a Windows XP Home Edition system, that others may as well:

When using a relatively speaking "LARGER" (purely relative term) HOSTS file? You MAY have to disable your DNS Client Service. This should not happen when using relatively tinier sized HOSTS files (1mb sized & below), but, can on some systems, & the way to disable the DNS Client service is quite simple:

:)

* This is achieved via going to the START button, RUN command, type in SERVICES.MSC & once it comes to the screen, find the DNS Client Service in the list of services & right-click on it (or, doubleclick) & use the PROPERTIES screen, & use the STOP button (to stop the service) & then set its startup type to DISABLED, & this 'lagging' goes away (reboot is recommended, especially on Windows 2000 systems, for the HOSTS file to reload... otherwise, changes may take up to 5 minutes to take, so reboots make that quicker & assured on ANY Ms Windows-NT based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003 & VISTA).

APK

[miajade11]

great post it is really a helpful information. keep posting such infos.

[shokosugi]

never really thought about this but it makes sense. this should reduce DNS lookups.