I agree too Chisolm Originally the requestor wanted a list of 'bad' addresses, which is why I provided the link. The concept of using the hosts file as an ad blocker was originally developed for stand-alone boxes, not networks. As you say, it would be pointless to use this method when a proxy server can be used to block the sites in the list for an entire network.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chisholm Wildermuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:58 AM > To: BRAD GRIFFIN > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: banned sites lists! > > > That's probably true, I'm only familiar with the usage in > Win2k...and even > then very little. All of our installs use DNS, except for > very very special > instances. > > I still have to stand firm on thinking that it's a bad idea > though... I > don't know how many machines you admin, but I really really > really would hate > having to mess with hosts files on all the machines. I had heard of > something at one point that MS created/beta/demo'd a > "distributed" hosts file > or something of the like where you could keep a single copy > on a server and > they would all reference that?? I don't really recall... I > just know I don't > think it's a very good solution to a problem. I see too many > work arounds, > too much admin time, and still not simplistic enough to make > it practical. > > "The only problem with this method is that it can be tricky > to set up in > conjunction with a proxy server." --- Why would you do both ? > > IMHO Content filtering should still be done at a proxy and not with an > archaic file whose life ended with that of the original ARPANet. > > Chisholm Wildermuth > Systems Engineer > dbWebNet, Inc. > >
