MVPS Hosts File Update January-08-2014

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by siljaline, Jan 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-08-2014]
    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

    Download: hosts.zip (134 kb)
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2014/01/08/1920344.aspx

    How To: Download and Extract the HOSTS file
    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts2.htm

    HOSTS File - Frequently Asked Questions
    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hostsfaq.htm

    Note: the "text" version makes a great resource for determining possible unwanted connections ...
    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt (514 kb)

    Get notified when the MVPS HOSTS file is updated
    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/updates.htm
     
  2. Banzi

    Banzi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Posts:
    368
    Location:
    Scotland
    Cheers for the update :)
     
  3. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    You're most welcome !
     
  4. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    Thanks Silj.

    I know that the format change has been posted already by you (and others), but I guess that it wouldn't hurt to raise attention again about it:

    http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

    I noticed also a little discussion at DSLR:
    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28943029-Free-MVPS-Hosts-File-Update-January-08-2014
    Redwolfe_98 was so kind to post in that DSLR thread the latest MVPS HOSTS file in the old 127.0.0.1 format. For myself I also "transformed" it to that old 127.0.0.1 format (using Beyond Compare version 2). I got the same result as redwolfe_98.
    I assume that it doesn't matter whether there are one, two or more "spaces" after 127.0.0.1 (or 0.0.0.0); at least there should be one "space".
     
  5. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    I would NOT use the file altered by the user at DSL reports as it is untested and not reliable as you may totally alter your Browser Localhost.

    Many are reporting the new format using the "0.0.0.0" prefix in lieu of the "127.0.0.1" prefix has had a positive response from those that use the file.
    Keeping in mind the *top* of the Hosts file has 127.0.0.1 localhost which dictates how the remainder of the entries behave.

    As to your query of entry spacing - below are some sample entries for comparative purposes:
    0.0.0.0 ads.garga.biz
    0.0.0.0 ads.gateway.bg
    0.0.0.0 ads.gather.com
    0.0.0.0 track.gawker.com #[WebBug]
    0.0.0.0 ad.gazeta.pl
    0.0.0.0 adp.gazeta.pl
    0.0.0.0 adv.gazeta.pl
    0.0.0.0 analytics.gazeta.pl
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2014
  6. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    Actually I fully agree with you!

    What I should have mentioned is that I am on XP with IE8.
    Using 127.0.0.1 on that system has no bad result as far as I know and as far as I can tell.
    Keep in mind this quote from the MVPS HOSTS file site:
    Good to hear that.

    Yep.

    Only for your info, this board software reduces one or more "spaces" to just one.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2014
  7. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Good luck with running a modified Hosts file FanJ, it can't condoned or commented as to weather it will or won't work.

    See the FAQ for more information.

    • The author of the file may be reached via Blog commenting.
     
  8. Wallaby

    Wallaby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    156
    What does this phrase mean in simple words? o_O
     
  9. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    Hi Wallaby,

    Have a look at the screenshot. It shows you where that line "127.0.0.1 localhost" belongs. I hope that this helps.

    Hosts_2014_01_17_1.gif
     
  10. Wallaby

    Wallaby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    156
    OK... what does "... which dictates how the remainder of the entries behave" mean?
     
  11. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
  12. Wallaby

    Wallaby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    156
    And so which is the "link" between 127.0.0.1 localhost and the fact that previously we had all lines with 127.0.0.1 and now all 0.0.0.0 ?
     
  13. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
  14. Wallaby

    Wallaby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    156
    OK, never mind.
    From your post I understood that the fact that in the first line there is still 127.0.0.1, in some way influenced the behaviour of all the other lines that were changed from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0.
    And that without that 127.0.0.1 localhost things would be different.
     
  15. Raza0007

    Raza0007 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,425
    Location:
    USA
    Actually, Windows is configured to look for this 127.0.0.1 localhost entry at the start of the hosts file, if it does not find this entry it will not consider the file as a hosts file. That is why you still need this entry at the start of the file, even if the IPs have been changed to 0.0.0.0

    The change of IPs confused me also, but the new address 0.0.0.0 means "no address" so any url that is pointed towards this IP will not get routed anywhere.
     
  16. Wallaby

    Wallaby Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Posts:
    156
    Thanks Raza0007, now it is clear :thumb:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.