Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MVPS HOSTS File Update January-18-2012
23 views
Skip to first unread message
siljaline
Jan 18, 2012, 10:47:31 PM1/18/12
to
<paste>
The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Download: hosts.zip (147 kb)
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
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 (596 kb)
Get notified when the MVPS HOSTS file is updated
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/updates.htm
</paste>
Silj
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Download: hosts.zip (147 kb)
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
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 (596 kb)
Get notified when the MVPS HOSTS file is updated
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/updates.htm
</paste>
Silj
--
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Virus Guy
Jan 18, 2012, 11:44:28 PM1/18/12
to
siljaline wrote:
> The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
Is there such a thing as a firefox add-on that aborts any attempt to
> The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
download content from "local host" (ie - 127.0.0.1) ?
I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the browser is
trying to render pages containing lots of blocked domains.
siljaline
Jan 18, 2012, 11:57:23 PM1/18/12
to
Virus Guy wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a firefox add-on that aborts any attempt to
> download content from "local host" (ie - 127.0.0.1) ?
I am not aware of any Firefox add-ons that would accomplish this.
> Is there such a thing as a firefox add-on that aborts any attempt to
> download content from "local host" (ie - 127.0.0.1) ?
You may try >
<http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hostsfaq.htm#unable>
See specific instructions for Firefox.
> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the browser is
> trying to render pages containing lots of blocked domains.
<http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
of OS.
Dustin
Jan 19, 2012, 1:47:49 AM1/19/12
to
"siljaline" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in news:jf87pl$va2$1...@dont-email.me:
> Virus Guy wrote:
>
>> Is there such a thing as a firefox add-on that aborts any attempt to
>> download content from "local host" (ie - 127.0.0.1) ?
>
> I am not aware of any Firefox add-ons that would accomplish this.
>
> You may try >
> <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hostsfaq.htm#unable>
> See specific instructions for Firefox.
>
>> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the browser is
>> trying to render pages containing lots of blocked domains.
>
> Set your DNS to manual in Services >
> <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> of OS.
Much more so under the win9x flavors.
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
> Virus Guy wrote:
>
>> Is there such a thing as a firefox add-on that aborts any attempt to
>> download content from "local host" (ie - 127.0.0.1) ?
>
> I am not aware of any Firefox add-ons that would accomplish this.
>
> You may try >
> <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hostsfaq.htm#unable>
> See specific instructions for Firefox.
>
>> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the browser is
>> trying to render pages containing lots of blocked domains.
>
> Set your DNS to manual in Services >
> <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> of OS.
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 8:30:39 AM1/19/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> >> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the
> >> browser is trying to render pages containing lots of blocked
> >> domains.
> >
> > Set your DNS to manual in Services >
> > <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> > A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> > of OS.
>
> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> >> I'm finding that browsing is becoming way to slow when the
> >> browser is trying to render pages containing lots of blocked
> >> domains.
> >
> > Set your DNS to manual in Services >
> > <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> > A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> > of OS.
>
> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
handle large hosts files compared to XP.
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 8:47:25 AM1/19/12
to
Virus Guy wrote:
> Dustin wrote:
> > > <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> > > A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> > > of OS.
> >
> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> handle large hosts files compared to XP.
Heh.
That line from winhelp2002 that says:
"Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
tends to slow down the machine."
used to read as follows:
"Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
tends to slow down the machine. This only occurs in W2000/
XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected."
It obviously took too much precious space to include references to
win-9x/me on the winhelp hosts-file page.
I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by hosts
blocking.
> Dustin wrote:
> > > <http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm#Note>
> > > A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> > > of OS.
> >
> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> handle large hosts files compared to XP.
That line from winhelp2002 that says:
"Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
tends to slow down the machine."
used to read as follows:
"Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
tends to slow down the machine. This only occurs in W2000/
XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected."
It obviously took too much precious space to include references to
win-9x/me on the winhelp hosts-file page.
I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by hosts
blocking.
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 9:02:17 AM1/19/12
to
Virus Guy wrote:
> A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> of OS.
Which we now know to be wrong because:
> A Hosts file larger than 135 kb slows down a Windows PC regardless
> of OS.
> That line from winhelp2002 used to read as follows:
>
> "Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
> tends to slow down the machine. This only occurs in W2000/
> XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected."
The underlying reason (as siljaline alludes to) is the DNS client
> "Editors Note: in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb)
> tends to slow down the machine. This only occurs in W2000/
> XP/Vista. Windows 98 and ME are not affected."
present in Win-XP and higher, which caches DNS results. I can find no
Microsoft document putting an upper limit on the size of the HOSTS file
that is compatible with the DNS service - some non-microsoft sources put
the upper limit closer to 100kb.
Because win-9x/me never had anything similar to the DNS service, it
can't be limited by HOSTS file size - at least not for the same reason.
siljaline
Jan 19, 2012, 11:25:29 AM1/19/12
to
Dustin wrote:
<snipped>
> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
XP on up.
Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the Stoneage.
<snipped>
> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
XP on up.
Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the Stoneage.
Autumn
Jan 19, 2012, 1:45:55 PM1/19/12
to
Thanks, Silj.
siljaline
Jan 19, 2012, 2:28:43 PM1/19/12
to
Autumn wrote:
> Thanks, Silj.
As always, Autumn ~
> Thanks, Silj.
As always, Autumn ~
s|b
Jan 19, 2012, 3:33:02 PM1/19/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:47:31 -0500, siljaline wrote:
> The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
>
> Download: hosts.zip (147 kb)
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
Tnx!
> The MVPS HOSTS file was recently updated [January-18-2012]
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
>
> Download: hosts.zip (147 kb)
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip
--
s|b
siljaline
Jan 19, 2012, 4:18:57 PM1/19/12
to
s|b wrote:
> Tnx!
You're welcome, enjoy the file.
> Tnx!
You're welcome, enjoy the file.
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 7:23:26 PM1/19/12
to
siljaline wrote:
> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.
I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with file-system,
> > Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.
but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size limitation of FAT32 -
I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can probably handle most HOSTS
files regardless of size.
> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> days unless it's for ...
Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
clothes.
Getting back to my original point -
What's the MVPS policy regarding inclusion of Google's various
ad-serving and behavior-tracking machines in the MVPS HOSTS file?
I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated) copy
of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google search
page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added every twitter
and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by browser of those
web-cancers.
So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
Dustin
Jan 19, 2012, 7:48:37 PM1/19/12
to
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F181AFF...@Guy.com:
You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong on this
one. Surprise surprise...
one. Surprise surprise...
Dustin
Jan 19, 2012, 7:50:35 PM1/19/12
to
"siljaline" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in news:jf9g4q$4oa$1...@dont-email.me:
> Dustin wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.
I wasn't discussing the file system. Fat32/ntfs have no trouble with a few
hundred kilobytes. The DNS services however... Aren't so impressed.
> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
> days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the
> Stoneage.
Again,
If you have thousands of entries redirected to loopback, it will take your
box a moment or two to resolve them. (IE: line by line reading on whatever
domain you enter to compare it to your custom hosts file.) While the
access time isn't long, it's far from "not noticable" if you have a huge
file.
> Dustin wrote:
> <snipped>
>
>> Much more so under the win9x flavors.
>
> The file system on Windows 9 x is not the same Kernel as
> XP on up.
hundred kilobytes. The DNS services however... Aren't so impressed.
> Regardless of file size on a 9 x PC there should be no noticeable
> slowness. This is moot since no one should be running a 9 x PC these
> days unless it's for running Beta software, otherwise you'd be in the
> Stoneage.
If you have thousands of entries redirected to loopback, it will take your
box a moment or two to resolve them. (IE: line by line reading on whatever
domain you enter to compare it to your custom hosts file.) While the
access time isn't long, it's far from "not noticable" if you have a huge
file.
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 7:59:34 PM1/19/12
to
Dustin wrote:
> > I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> > handle large hosts files compared to XP.
>
> You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong on
> this one. Surprise surprise...
Did you not read the follow-ups to that post before replying?
> > I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
> > handle large hosts files compared to XP.
>
> You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong on
> this one. Surprise surprise...
Win-XP and higher has well known problems with hosts files larger than
100 - 135 kb when the DNS Client service is running. The DNS Client is
an automatic-startup service by default.
Windows 98 has no such service.
Now take your foot out of your mouth.
Virus Guy
Jan 19, 2012, 8:08:27 PM1/19/12
to
I wrote:
> I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated)
> copy of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google
> search page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added
> every twitter and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by
> browser of those web-cancers.
>
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why
> I'm seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
See also:
> I've added every google host-name I can find to my (arguably dated)
> copy of the MVPS hosts file - while still allowing the basic google
> search page and google-maps to operate that is. I've also added
> every twitter and feacesbook host I can find to completely rid by
> browser of those web-cancers.
>
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why
> I'm seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
http://blog.patrickmeenan.com/
============
Browsing the broken web
For the purposes of this example I'll be "breaking" the twitter,
Facebook and Google buttons as well as the Google API server (jquery,
etc) and Google Analytics.
Now that we have a blackhole server, breaking the web is just a matter
of populating some entries in your hosts file
(C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows). Go ahead and add
these entries and save the updated hosts file:
72.66.115.13 ajax.googleapis.com
72.66.115.13 apis.google.com
72.66.115.13 www.google-analytics.com
72.66.115.13 connect.facebook.net
72.66.115.13 platform.twitter.com
...and go browse the web. It shouldn't take you long to find a site
that is infuriatingly painful to browse. Congratulations, you just
experienced a Frontend SPOF - now go fix it so your users don't have to
feel the same pain (assuming it is a site you control, otherwise just
yell at the owner).
==============
The IP 72.66.115.13 is blackhole.webpagetest.org, a "server" set up by
the author such that it can be routed to, but drops all connections. I
don't know why that was necessary (or what the difference is) in using
local host (127.0.0.1) which I would think would give the same behavior.
I do have all the above host-names in my HOSTS file, BTW.
I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose of
ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up - and how
does my web-experience change if I block it.
Dustin
Jan 19, 2012, 10:25:35 PM1/19/12
to
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F181EED...@Guy.com:
> I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
> exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
> browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by
hosts
> blocking.
Which only makes sense, As your machine has to read the hosts file line
by line (unless it's already cached it) every single time you enter a
domain. I don't care how fast/slow your machine is, trolling hundreds of
entries will slow it down a smidgeon. :)
As far as DNS services go, your win9x machine still understands what DNS
is, and will still make use of it. It can't provide DNS routing services
to other machines without 3rd party software, but it still makes use of
DNS as a client to resolve and let you surf.
With regard to running windows 98 for years, I don't see the point in
doing so from a technical perspective. You aren't more secure than an NT
box, although I realize for some silly reason you think you are. Fact
is, short of some specific NT services, your win9x box is just as
0wnable as any other machine. In some cases, much much more so. It's
easier for a virus to totally 0wn a win9x box because that machine has
poor/almost not present permissions on files. FAT32 does have drawbacks
from a security perspective, but you wouldn't know that. :)
A properly configured system although not 100% hackproof is still
considered secure for most purposes. Running seriously OUTDATED OS and
other apps tho, is asking for it. I know you don't believe anything I
and others tell you, but could you please do one tiny favor? Stop
proclaiming win9x is safer. it isn't.
> I've been running my win-98 machines for years with hosts files that
> exceed 700/800 kb in size. It's only within the past year that web
> browsing is really getting bogged down by site-blocking caused by
hosts
> blocking.
by line (unless it's already cached it) every single time you enter a
domain. I don't care how fast/slow your machine is, trolling hundreds of
entries will slow it down a smidgeon. :)
As far as DNS services go, your win9x machine still understands what DNS
is, and will still make use of it. It can't provide DNS routing services
to other machines without 3rd party software, but it still makes use of
DNS as a client to resolve and let you surf.
With regard to running windows 98 for years, I don't see the point in
doing so from a technical perspective. You aren't more secure than an NT
box, although I realize for some silly reason you think you are. Fact
is, short of some specific NT services, your win9x box is just as
0wnable as any other machine. In some cases, much much more so. It's
easier for a virus to totally 0wn a win9x box because that machine has
poor/almost not present permissions on files. FAT32 does have drawbacks
from a security perspective, but you wouldn't know that. :)
A properly configured system although not 100% hackproof is still
considered secure for most purposes. Running seriously OUTDATED OS and
other apps tho, is asking for it. I know you don't believe anything I
and others tell you, but could you please do one tiny favor? Stop
proclaiming win9x is safer. it isn't.
Dustin
Jan 19, 2012, 10:27:26 PM1/19/12
to
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18B3FE...@Guy.com:
> I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with
> file-system, but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size
> limitation of FAT32 - I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can
> probably handle most HOSTS files regardless of size.
On a line by line basis, yes.
> Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?
Please explain... what you mean by this?
> Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
> threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
> clothes.
Well, it's hardly a secret that you don't know much about the subjects you
profess to have knowledge of. :)
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
> seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
It's a simple matter really. The more dummy domains you add to the file,
the more lines windows gets to scan real quick every single time you try
to visit a domain.
Why not just run firefox and noscript?
> I'm not quite sure why you're mixing the term "kernel" with
> file-system, but if you are referring to the 4-GB file-size
> limitation of FAT32 - I'll go out on a limb and say that Win-98 can
> probably handle most HOSTS files regardless of size.
> Does the taste of Microsoft's koolaid get better with time?
> Oh, sorry, I forgot. NT is made from the finest, most expensive
> threads. I must be the only one that hasn't seen the emperor's new
> clothes.
profess to have knowledge of. :)
> So I guess it's conceivable that my "enhancements" could be why I'm
> seeing increasing bogging while browsing.
the more lines windows gets to scan real quick every single time you try
to visit a domain.
Why not just run firefox and noscript?
FromTheRafters
Jan 20, 2012, 8:13:52 AM1/20/12
to
that is.
~BD~
Jan 20, 2012, 7:13:50 PM1/20/12
to
FromTheRafters wrote:
[....]
[....]
>>
> Thank you, and you're right - he won't believe you nor understand why
> that is.
>
OT - any snow there yet FTR?
> Thank you, and you're right - he won't believe you nor understand why
> that is.
>
Dustin
Jan 20, 2012, 8:42:21 PM1/20/12
to
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BC76...@Guy.com:
> Dustin wrote:
>
>> > I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
>> > handle large hosts files compared to XP.
>>
>> You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong
>> on this one. Surprise surprise...
>
> Did you not read the follow-ups to that post before replying?
While it might surprise you, I tend to read all of your posts. They're
usually funny from a certified technician/malware research expert point
of view. You try to be witty and come off as having superior
intelligence to that of many of us here, but you fall right on your face
trying.
> Win-XP and higher has well known problems with hosts files larger
> than 100 - 135 kb when the DNS Client service is running. The DNS
> Client is an automatic-startup service by default.
Windows XP doesn't have the problem, a specific service! does. You do
realize it's one of MANY services XP can run? The hosts file was
*never* intended for the purposes you and many others use it for now.
It's a bandaid approach, imo.
> Windows 98 has no such service.
Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say windows98 had a service for dns
specifically without making use of 3rd party software.
> Now take your foot out of your mouth.
It wasn't in my mouth in the first place.
> Dustin wrote:
>
>> > I believe I've read in the past that win-9x is much better able to
>> > handle large hosts files compared to XP.
>>
>> You should re-read what you thought you read then, as you're wrong
>> on this one. Surprise surprise...
>
> Did you not read the follow-ups to that post before replying?
usually funny from a certified technician/malware research expert point
of view. You try to be witty and come off as having superior
intelligence to that of many of us here, but you fall right on your face
trying.
> Win-XP and higher has well known problems with hosts files larger
> than 100 - 135 kb when the DNS Client service is running. The DNS
> Client is an automatic-startup service by default.
realize it's one of MANY services XP can run? The hosts file was
*never* intended for the purposes you and many others use it for now.
It's a bandaid approach, imo.
> Windows 98 has no such service.
specifically without making use of 3rd party software.
> Now take your foot out of your mouth.
Dustin
Jan 20, 2012, 8:44:17 PM1/20/12
to
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B...@Guy.com:
> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to track
more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
can't identify you specifically from it.
if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
can't identify you specifically from it.
if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
David H. Lipman
Jan 20, 2012, 10:31:34 PM1/20/12
to
From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
| Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B...@Guy.com:
|
>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
>> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
>> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
|
| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to track
| more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
| long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
| can't identify you specifically from it.
|
| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
|
LOL - GOOD !
Block it ! :-)
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
| Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B...@Guy.com:
|
>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
>> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
>> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
|
| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to track
| more specific details about who visits the site and where they go, how
| long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous data, Site admins
| can't identify you specifically from it.
|
| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
|
Block it ! :-)
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Dustin
Jan 21, 2012, 12:47:01 AM1/21/12
to
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:wPGdnVyzS_0OrIfS...@giganews.com:
> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>
>| Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B...@Guy.com:
>|
>>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the
>>> purpose of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to
>>> serve up - and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
>|
>| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to
>| track more specific details about who visits the site and where they
>| go, how long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous
>| data, Site admins can't identify you specifically from it.
>|
>| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
>|
>
> LOL - GOOD !
> Block it ! :-)
>
>
>
The graph looks cool tho. LOL! From the web development screens.. It's a
cool flowchart.
news:wPGdnVyzS_0OrIfS...@giganews.com:
> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>
>| Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4F18BE8B...@Guy.com:
>|
>>> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the
>>> purpose of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to
>>> serve up - and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
>|
>| It's a data analysis tool. For web developers. It allows them to
>| track more specific details about who visits the site and where they
>| go, how long they stayed on each page etc. It collects anonymous
>| data, Site admins can't identify you specifically from it.
>|
>| if you block it, you deny the web developers statistical data.
>|
>
> LOL - GOOD !
> Block it ! :-)
>
>
>
cool flowchart.
Etal
Jan 21, 2012, 12:06:41 PM1/21/12
to
google-analytics.com, facebook.net nor twitter.com my web-browser has
made /surprising/ URL requests to the above five servers (as well as to
many other servers).
When such uncalled for (by me) 3rd party requests happen and the
requests are for something i don't see any benefit from; Perhaps
something tiny like a 1*1 pixel tracking picture or a large obfuscated
JavaScript, that for all i know (to paraphrase from a recent post by
FromTheRafters) might lead to shellcode and exploits for Java, Flash,
and Adobe Reader .. then they get an honorable mention in my "hosts"
file. So, that is what has happened with the five domains PatrickMeenan
gives as example as 3rd-party web-page widgets. (In there they're
re-pointed to 127.0.0.1)
Can't say i can see many sites taking longer to load or outright
stalling, but my broadband isn't that wide in the first place so maybe i
don't notice any difference caused by this.
> I would really appreciate it if someone here can tell me the purpose
> of ajax.googleapis.com. As in - what is it designed to serve up -
> and how does my web-experience change if I block it.
web-client users any benefits. IMO - If a web-site designer/writer wants
to look at how his web-pages works he shouldn't send each random visitor
off to 3rd party servers without asking, but be using tools and look at
logs on the server that the web-site is located on.
--
Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion.
0 new messages