Next LUG meet: 9 Nov 2003 around 4 pm - VJTI -------------------------------------------- Sometime Today, linuxdev assembled some asciibets to say:
> thats an highly inefficient solution at best. Besides if i change my Actually, it's more efficient than a heuristic scanner. Your host still needs to do a host name lookup - this way it's faster, since it gets a response from your own hosts.conf file. also, there's no processing done (except for the fact that your webserver gets hit a lot). > setup or lose the built up list its all gone. Heuristic scanners such I've found that I don't need to change the list that I got from the site. I haven't seen an advt in all the months that I've used it. > as these are perfect for on-the-fly removal of ads. At absolutely no On-the-fly -> too much processing required. > pain or modification to any damn file. The program itself hardly has You have to install it don't you? It's easier to do cat newhosts >> /etc/hosts.conf > any overhead and doesn't introduce any kind of latency in browsing. it does. there's overhead in starting a new process, and in running that. the hosts method doesn't have that issue. -- Granddad was superstitious about books. He thought that if you had enough of them around, education leaked out, like radioactivity. (Johnny and the Dead) -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
