A browser question

On 9/24/2017 3:32 PM, Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:


Now that I have started playing with this Hosts file thing I have a
question, in the file some entries use the localhost 127.0.0.1
numbers and some use the 0.0.0.0 numbers.
When adding new entries which is the proper IP number to use?

Thanks, Rene


I should have mentioned that I am running Windows 10 in case there is
a difference.

Rene

https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...2&cid=33147664

Â*Â*Â* 127.0.0.1Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ------------ thru_loopback_interface_to_localhost
(falls on floor)
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* (If you have a web server on localhost,
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* does it answer on port 80 ???)

Â*Â*Â* 0.0.0.0Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* --X invalid address (falls on floor and doesn't reach
loopback)

A suggestion here says:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r246...0-1-vs-0-0-0-0

Â*Â* # Special Entries
Â*Â* 0.0.0.0Â*Â* 0.0.0.0Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* # fix for traceroute and netstat display
anomaly

And there are more suggestions for entries than that,
but I don't want to spoil the surprise when you do
your research :-) Each suggestion stretching credulity.
Like some sort of voodoo spell.

Best guess,
Â*Â* Paul

Thanks again Paul, No I don't have anything on port 80 So I can use
either or some other invalid number set according to some posts on that
Slashdot article which by the way was very interesting reading. Boy, the
older I get the more I learn. :-)

Rene

On 9/23/2017 9:04 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
cameo wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

cameo wrote

Thanks. Last time I remember editing the HOSTS file was in Linux. Where
is it in Windows?

https://blogs.msmvps.com/hostsnews/

Not sure that really answers the question of WHERE is the 'hosts' file
in Windows. The file is under:

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

It is a text file with no extension in its filename.

You're right. That's what I was after. Now that you told me, it's a
similar directory I remember in Linux.

Been a long time (probably 20 years) since I last used *NIX: AIX, UNIX,
Linux (Redhat), SunOS, [Open]Solaris, SCO and Unixware (which were
embedded OSes in comm controllers that customers normally aren't
supposed to touch - but then I'm often abnormal), HP-UX, and others too
long forgotten. Considering all the acronyms I've accumulated over the
decades, no wonder some folks don't understand what the hell I'm talking
about when yakking it up with my other oldie cronies. I've played with
more recent Linux distros, like Ubuntu (and derivaties), Mint, and some
others but just can't get motivated to delve back into that genre. With
Microsoft ****ing up Windows 8 and now 10, they're sure pushing me to be
a nixie pixie.

Isn't /etc a mount point so you don't care on which system volume the
path is located? Had to go check ...

http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesy.../html/etc.html

From that article, looks like "etc" is where the similarity ends (and
nothing to do with \windows\system32 or any parent path similar to
Windows). On *NIX, looks like the 'hosts' file is at /etc/hosts (i.e.,
directly under the /etc mount point).

I didn'y meran that Linux also had windows\system32 directories. I was
really referring to the etc and drivers ones. BTW, I also dumped my
Linux distros about 15 years ago, but at work I used HP-UX though I was
an app developer, not a sysadm/network guy.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I also use Acrylic DNS proxy, which lets me use wildcards.
(Does that add to time taken? I imagine the answer is that it does, but
not noticeably [or even measurably] - same as having junk in the
registry.)
With that I block virtually everything Google except search
and maps:
[]
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
[]
Could that not have been just one line with *.doubleclick.*, or is
Acrylic limited on where you can have the *s?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

People may say I can't sing, but no-one can ever say I didn't sing.
Florence Foster Jenkins (reportedly)

In message , Paul
writes:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:


Now that I have started playing with this Hosts file thing I have a
question, in the file some entries use the localhost 127.0.0.1
numbers and some use the 0.0.0.0 numbers.
When adding new entries which is the proper IP number to use?

Thanks, Rene

I should have mentioned that I am running Windows 10 in case there
is a difference.
Rene

https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...2&cid=33147664

127.0.0.1 ------------ thru_loopback_interface_to_localhost
(falls on floor)
(If you have a web server on localhost,
does it answer on port 80 ???)

(A while ago I read a suggestion that 127.0.0.0 is marginally better [I
forget in what way - probably faster], I forget why; I've been using it
since then, and found no [noticeable] _dis_advantage.)


0.0.0.0 --X invalid address (falls on floor and doesn't reach
loopback)
[]
And there are more suggestions for entries than that,
but I don't want to spoil the surprise when you do
your research :-) Each suggestion stretching credulity.
Like some sort of voodoo spell.
[]
I've now just read all the links Paul and Mayayana have provided (with
the exception of Acrylic DNS - well, I've got that page open, but it
doesn't display in my old Firefox so I'll have to try it in Chrome). I
get the general impression that 0 (faster than 0.0.0.0) _might_ be
faster than 127.0.0.1 as it might "be rejected earlier" (my summary of
various detailed explanations). [It would certainly save typing.]

What none of the sources I've just read say is what the DISadvantage(s),
if any, of using 0 instead of 127.0.0.1 is/are. Do either of you (or
anyone else!) know of any?

(With my 127.0.0.0,) I still sometimes see "waiting for ..." in the
status line of my Firefox. Will this disappear if I switch to using 0,
or is it there because some _script_ in a page I'm looking at is waiting
for a response from the blocked site, and I'll still see it?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What none of the sources I've just read say is what the DISadvantage(s),
| if any, of using 0 instead of 127.0.0.1 is/are. Do either of you (or
| anyone else!) know of any?
|

That's an odd question. Even the Wikipedia page is a
discussion rather than information. I've always used
127.0.0.1 because it works and I just can't find a
compelling reason to change. It's said that 127.0.0.1
will cause an attempt to connect locally while 0.0.0.0
will just br dropped. Makes sense, but most pages still
load instantly for me, so I'm not convinced it's waiting
for a timeout.

0.0.0.0 is said to represent *all* connections. What
does that mean? I don't know.

Some people say 0.0.0.0 will resolve faster because
it has less bytes. That's absurd. If it were true at all
it would be unmeasurable, at less than 1 ms.

Some people say that 127.0.0.1 goes to the loopback
interface while 0.0.0.0 goes nowhere. But as far as I can
tell, loopback is nowhere. It doesn't leave the machine.

So personally I don't see any reason to switch to
0.0.0.0. Nor do I see any reason to stay with 127.0.0.1.
Since I can't find any clear, definitive reason for either,
and don't know whether there might be some undiscovered
problem with 0.0.0.0, I stick with what I know. Maybe you
can do a thorough testing and let the rest of us know.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
| []
| Could that not have been just one line with *.doubleclick.*, or is
| Acrylic limited on where you can have the *s?

I think you're right. I never noticed that before.
The guidance doesn't explain in detail but does show
this example:

127.0.0.1 ad.* ads.*

So it apparently works not only for sections
separated by dots, but for any pattern. Presumably
one could also use *doubleclick* to catch theoretical
domains like ads.doubleclickads.com. In fact,
Acrylic even accomodates regular expressions.
The guidance is in the comments of the sample
Acrylic HOSTS file. Sample:

127.0.0.1 /^ads?\..*$


Personally, I think life's too short for RegExp, but
some people *love* them.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What none of the sources I've just read say is what the DISadvantage(s),
| if any, of using 0 instead of 127.0.0.1 is/are. Do either of you (or
| anyone else!) know of any?
|

That's an odd question.

[I thought it was quite a reasonable one (-:]

Even the Wikipedia page is a
discussion rather than information. I've always used
127.0.0.1 because it works and I just can't find a
compelling reason to change. It's said that 127.0.0.1
will cause an attempt to connect locally while 0.0.0.0
will just br dropped. Makes sense, but most pages still
load instantly for me, so I'm not convinced it's waiting
for a timeout.

I wish they did for me )-:.

0.0.0.0 is said to represent *all* connections. What
does that mean? I don't know.

Me neither.

Some people say 0.0.0.0 will resolve faster because
it has less bytes. That's absurd. If it were true at all
it would be unmeasurable, at less than 1 ms.

Rubbish - it's still four bytes. Well, I suppose they might mean the
time taken to read the line from the hosts file - in that case, using 0
rather than 0.0.0.0 will be even faster (which I shall be using anyway,
unless anyone _does_ come up with a _dis_advantage of using 0 rather
than 2130706433 or '2).

Some people say that 127.0.0.1 goes to the loopback
interface while 0.0.0.0 goes nowhere. But as far as I can
tell, loopback is nowhere. It doesn't leave the machine.

No, but conceivably the machine might have to do some parsing on the
former but less on the latter. The difference is likely undetectable
(though for pages containing _hundreds_ of links - which are becoming
commoner! - it _might_ be just about detectable).

So personally I don't see any reason to switch to
0.0.0.0. Nor do I see any reason to stay with 127.0.0.1.
Since I can't find any clear, definitive reason for either,
and don't know whether there might be some undiscovered
problem with 0.0.0.0, I stick with what I know. Maybe you
can do a thorough testing and let the rest of us know.

I'm unlikely to be able to! Hence my asking here (I've just added XP to
the list).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Practicall every British actor with a bus pass is in there ...
Barry Norman (on "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" [2011]), RT 2015/12/12-18

(About "Acrylic DNS".)

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
| []
| Could that not have been just one line with *.doubleclick.*, or is
| Acrylic limited on where you can have the *s?

I think you're right. I never noticed that before.
The guidance doesn't explain in detail but does show
this example:

127.0.0.1 ad.* ads.*

Ah, so you can put multiple entries on a line, too. Sounds good!

So it apparently works not only for sections
separated by dots, but for any pattern. Presumably
one could also use *doubleclick* to catch theoretical
domains like ads.doubleclickads.com. In fact,

Good point.

Acrylic even accomodates regular expressions.
The guidance is in the comments of the sample
Acrylic HOSTS file. Sample:

127.0.0.1 /^ads?\..*$


Personally, I think life's too short for RegExp, but
some people *love* them.

I _quite_ like playing with them, though would need a refresher course
in order to parse the above example!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Practicall every British actor with a bus pass is in there ...
Barry Norman (on "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" [2011]), RT 2015/12/12-18

Mayayana wrote:

But as far as I can tell, loopback is nowhere.
It doesn't leave the machine.

Well, consider what would happen, if you enabled the
IIS web server in your copy of Windows. It would be
sitting at 127.0.0.1:80 , aka localhost:80, and any
attempts by the host file to "send requests into
a hole", they are sent to your IIS server. And it
promptly does something, maybe something that is
surprising.

Paul

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:00:12 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
| 127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.com
| []
| Could that not have been just one line with *.doubleclick.*, or is
| Acrylic limited on where you can have the *s?

I think you're right. I never noticed that before.
The guidance doesn't explain in detail but does show
this example:

127.0.0.1 ad.* ads.*

Isn't it .* for regex to match anything?

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/

In message , Paul
writes:
Mayayana wrote:

But as far as I can tell, loopback is nowhere. It doesn't leave the
machine.

Well, consider what would happen, if you enabled the
IIS web server in your copy of Windows. It would be
sitting at 127.0.0.1:80 , aka localhost:80, and any
attempts by the host file to "send requests into
a hole", they are sent to your IIS server. And it
promptly does something, maybe something that is
surprising.

Paul

Whereas 0.0.0.0 (or just 0) would work as a blocker (when used in the
hosts file)? Is there any _dis_advantage to using 0?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best way to achieve immortality is by not dying.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| | What none of the sources I've just read say is what the
DISadvantage(s),
| | if any, of using 0 instead of 127.0.0.1 is/are. Do either of you (or
| | anyone else!) know of any?
| |
|
| That's an odd question.
|
| [I thought it was quite a reasonable one (-:]
|

I didn't mean it was odd to ask it. I meant it's odd because
it seems so hard to answer.


| but most pages still
| load instantly for me, so I'm not convinced it's waiting
| for a timeout.
|
| I wish they did for me )-:.
|

So why not try the 0.0.0.0 version?
(And report back.

|
| Some people say 0.0.0.0 will resolve faster because
| it has less bytes. That's absurd. If it were true at all
| it would be unmeasurable, at less than 1 ms.
|
| Rubbish - it's still four bytes. Well, I suppose they might mean the
| time taken to read the line from the hosts file

Yes. But that's silly. People with gigantic
HOSTS files are reasoning that they can have
a smaller file by reducing the number of characters.
But the real time is in searching for the URL string,
and that operation is probably taking a few ms,
even in a gigantic HOSTS file. It's so fast that
it's hard to measure.

"Paul" wrote

| Well, consider what would happen, if you enabled the
| IIS web server in your copy of Windows.

But I'm not running a server. How about
real world scenarios? Maybe you could volunteer
to do thorough testing of 0.0.0.0 vs 127.0.0.1.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| | What none of the sources I've just read say is what the
DISadvantage(s),
| | if any, of using 0 instead of 127.0.0.1 is/are. Do either of you (or
| | anyone else!) know of any?
| |
|
| That's an odd question.
|
| [I thought it was quite a reasonable one (-:]
|

I didn't mean it was odd to ask it. I meant it's odd because
it seems so hard to answer.

Ah, right.

| but most pages still
| load instantly for me, so I'm not convinced it's waiting
| for a timeout.
|
| I wish they did for me )-:.
|

So why not try the 0.0.0.0 version?
(And report back.

Maybe I will. Though for my hosts file, I'd not be able to report much
difference (only 105 entries) - I think. Anyway, I've just done it
(that's how I know it was 105), so we'll see.
|
| Some people say 0.0.0.0 will resolve faster because
| it has less bytes. That's absurd. If it were true at all
| it would be unmeasurable, at less than 1 ms.
|
| Rubbish - it's still four bytes. Well, I suppose they might mean the
| time taken to read the line from the hosts file

Yes. But that's silly. People with gigantic
HOSTS files are reasoning that they can have
a smaller file by reducing the number of characters.
But the real time is in searching for the URL string,
and that operation is probably taking a few ms,
even in a gigantic HOSTS file. It's so fast that
it's hard to measure.

Well, let's say 5 ms. 100 links would thus make for half a second - and
web pages with 100 links probably aren't uncommon: it seems de rigeur
for most companies to have a big block of links at the top of each page,
and another such at the bottom, and that's before you've got any in the
actual body of the text. (I'm rather sensitive to this as I have blind
friends, and listening to them as they wait for their speech to go
through these is painful.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best way to achieve immortality is by not dying.

"Rodney Pont" wrote


| I think you're right. I never noticed that before.
| The guidance doesn't explain in detail but does show
| this example:
|
| 127.0.0.1 ad.* ads.*
|
| Isn't it .* for regex to match anything?

You might be right. Like I said, life's
too short for regexp so I don't care.
Here's the Acrylic info:

---------------------------------------
The separator between IPADDRESS and HOSTNAMES can be any number of spaces #
# or tabs or both. If the HOSTNAMES contain the special characters '*' and
#
# '?' a (slow) "dir" like pattern matching algorithm is used instead of a
#
# (fast) binary search within the list of host names:
#
#
#
# 127.0.0.1 ad.* ads.*
#
#
#
# If a HOSTNAME starts with the '/' character instead it is treated like a
#
# regular expression (also very slow compared to a binary search):
#
#
#
# 127.0.0.1 /^ads?\..*$
#
#
#
# Note: More info about the regular expression engine and its syntax can be
#
# found at: http://regexpstudio.com
------------------------------------------

So it only parses lines beginning with / as regexp.
* is treated as a wildcard.