Discussion:
Blocking google adversizing, twitter, fecebook using hosts-file entries
(too old to reply)
98 Guy
2014-02-13 15:10:18 UTC
Permalink
I just came across this, so I thought I'd post it here. Using entries in the windows HOSTS file to
Block the hidden layer of crap that exists in all corporate websites is very efficient and one of
the most effective methods available today for people running all versions of Windows, but
particularly for Win-98 users.

Following are 3 separate sections. Read the comments, and add them to your own hosts file as
desired.

For those running the more bloated and over-complicated "NT" versions of Windows (2k, XP, 7, Vista,
etc) you are advised to go into services and turn off the DNS client service (it will generally
improve speed/performance of your system).

============================
#Begin code block - google and related hosts

127.0.0.1 localhost

# ALWAYS make sure "127.0.0.1 localhost" is the first line in your
# /hosts file or your system or browser may malfunction!

# See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file to find the standard
# locations of the HOSTS file for your particular OS. In Linux
# (and probably BSD), it's usually under /etc/hosts

# Yes, I know there are some redundant entries in this block--you
# can grep it and remove them yourself if it really matters. I'm
# too lazy to do it myself.

# Redistribute and republish freely!

#first, let's redirect English google.com search to Startpage
216.218.239.164 google.com #} redirects to us2.startpage.com:443
216.218.239.164 www.google.com #} 216.218.239.164 is the IP address for the
216.218.239.164 google.ca #} Google frontend Startpage and automatically
216.218.239.164 www.google.ca #} switches to https (443), even if http (80)
216.218.239.164 google.co.uk #} is specified. SP is much more secure a
216.218.239.164 www.google.co.uk #} search engine and far more privacy-friendly
216.218.239.164 google.ie #} than Google itself could ever hope to be.
216.218.239.164 www.google.ie #}

#127.0.0.1 ajax.googleapis.com #commented out for compatibility with sites that
#127.0.0.1 apis.google.com #dependencies on them some reason or other

#Youtube
127.0.0.1 youtube.com #} you know the story
127.0.0.1 www.youtube.com #}

127.0.0.1 i0.ytimg.com #} mostly thumbnails, user pictures and
127.0.0.1 i1.ytimg.com #} other unnecessary graphic clutter. Feel
127.0.0.1 i2.ytimg.com #} free to leave blocked, as it also
127.0.0.1 i3.ytimg.com #} improves YT's loading time considerably
127.0.0.1 i4.ytimg.com #}
127.0.0.1 i5.ytimg.com #}

127.0.0.1 s0.2mdn.net #} comment out everything in this segment
127.0.0.1 static.2mdn.net #} from this point down if you need to use
127.0.0.1 www.youtube-nocookie.com #} YT, since these next few servers are its
127.0.0.1 youtube-nocookie.com #} dependencies and can cause major
127.0.0.1 youtube-noscript.com #} functionality problems if blocked
127.0.0.1 www.youtube-noscript.com #}
127.0.0.1 s.youtube.com #} Nasty little statistic tracker called when
127.0.0.1 s1.youtube.com #} the video stream player is active
127.0.0.1 s2.youtube.com #}
127.0.0.1 video-stats.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 s.ytimg.com #} (s.ytimg.com is where the player is)

#various other G services - main pages
127.0.0.1 accounts.google.com #} comment out if you need to use G-mail
127.0.0.1 mail.google.com #}
127.0.0.1 gmail.com #}
127.0.0.1 www.gmail.com #}
127.0.0.1 sites.google.com
127.0.0.1 code.google.com
127.0.0.1 maps.google.com
127.0.0.1 groups.google.com #} real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
127.0.0.1 gg.google.com #}
127.0.0.1 plusone.google.com
127.0.0.1 fusion.google.com
127.0.0.1 plus.google.com
127.0.0.1 goog.le
127.0.0.1 youtu.be
is the same as http://youtu.be/AaBbCcDdEeFf

#and here's where everything else originates. What a mess!

127.0.0.1 domains.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 video-stats.video.google.com
127.0.0.1 4.afs.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 www.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 apps5.oingo.com
127.0.0.1 www.appliedsemantics.com
127.0.0.1 service.urchin.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 ads.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 www.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 adwords.google.com
127.0.0.1 googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1 www.googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 .google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 www.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 .googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 googletagservices.com
127.0.0.1 www.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 csi.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 .doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 gan.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 .doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad-g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googleads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ie.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 static.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.gstatic.com
127.0.0.1 clients.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients1.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients2.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients3.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients4.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients5.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients6.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients7.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients8.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients9.google.com
127.0.0.1 clients0.google.com
127.0.0.1 sassets.vevo.com #} some Youtube-related ad servers
127.0.0.1 2975c.v.fwmrm.net #}
127.0.0.1 m.v.fwmrm.net #}
127.0.0.1 .fwmrm.net #}
127.0.0.1 ytimg.googleusercontent.com # needless Youtube-related graphic clutter
127.0.0.1 html5shiv.googlecode.com
127.0.0.1 b3.caspio.com
127.0.0.1 ajax.microsoft.com
127.0.0.1 buttons.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh0.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh1.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh2.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh3.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh4.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh5.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh6.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh7.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh8.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 lh9.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s0.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s1.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s2.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s3.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s4.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s5.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s6.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s7.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s8.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 s9.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 chrome.google.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 checkout.google.com
127.0.0.1 .ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh1.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh2.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh3.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh4.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh5.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 lh6.ggpht.com
127.0.0.1 fonts.googleapis.com
127.0.0.1 gp1.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp2.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp3.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp4.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp5.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp6.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 gp7.googleusercontent.com
127.0.0.1 chart.apis.google.com

#crap from Doubleclick - mostly ad/spyware servers
127.0.0.1 conversion-pixel.invitemedia.com
127.0.0.1 analytics-api-samples.googlecode.com
127.0.0.1 m1.2mdn.net
127.0.0.1 rmcdn.2mdn.net
127.0.0.1 rmcdn.f.2mdn.net
127.0.0.1 n339.asp-cc.com
127.0.0.1 ads.cc-dt.com
127.0.0.1 clickserve.cc-dt.com
127.0.0.1 creative.cc-dt.com
127.0.0.1 clickserve.dartsearch.net
127.0.0.1 clickserve.eu.dartsearch.net
127.0.0.1 clickserve.uk.dartsearch.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad-g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ae.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ar.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.at.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.au.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.be.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.br.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ca.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ch.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.cl.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.cn.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.de.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.dk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.es.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.fi.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.fr.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.gr.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.hk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.hr.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.hu.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ie.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.in.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.jp.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.kr.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.it.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.nl.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.no.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.nz.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.pl.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.pt.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ro.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.ru.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.se.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.sg.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.si.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.terra.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.th.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.tw.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.us.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.za.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.n2434.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad-emea.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 creatives.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 dfp.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 feedads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 fls.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 fls.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googleads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ir.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 iv.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 motifcdn.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 motifcdn2.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 n4052ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 n4403ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 n479ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 paypalssl.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 pubads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 s2.video.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 survey.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 anon.doubleclick.speedera.net #not sure if this is an actual DC server or not
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.ne.jp
127.0.0.1 www3.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 www2.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 www3.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 tpc.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 ad.rs.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 affiliate.2mdn.net
127.0.0.1 clickserve.us2.dartsearch.net
127.0.0.1 ad-apac.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.mo.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 adclick.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 gan.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 googleads2.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 n4061ad.hk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 securepubads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.bg.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 cm.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 stats.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 fls.au.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 log2.quintelligence.com
127.0.0.1 www.destinationurl.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.shockwave.com
127.0.0.1 www3.webhostingtalk.com
127.0.0.1 ad.mirror.co.uk
127.0.0.1 host3.adhese.be
127.0.0.1 mcmads.mediacapital.pt
#End code block

===============
#Begin code block - facebook and related hosts

127.0.0.1 localhost

# ALWAYS make sure "127.0.0.1 localhost" is the first line in your /hosts file
# or your system or browser may malfunction!

# See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file to find the standard locations
# of the HOSTS file for your particular OS. In Linux (and probably BSD), it's
# usually under /etc/hosts

# Redistribute and republish freely!

127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 m.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fb.com
127.0.0.1 ns1.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ns2.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ns3.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ns4.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ns5.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 register.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 pixel.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 pt-br.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 es-la.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fr-fr.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 de-de.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ar-ar.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 hi-in.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 zh-cn.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ja-jp.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 error.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 badge.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 s-static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 graph.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah0.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah1.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah2.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah3.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah4.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah5.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah6.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah7.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ah8.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fb.net
127.0.0.1 facebook.net
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 m.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ns1.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ns2.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ns3.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ns4.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ns5.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 register.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 pixel.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 pt-br.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 es-la.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 fr-fr.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 de-de.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ar-ar.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 hi-in.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 zh-cn.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 ja-jp.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 error.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 badge.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 graph.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 b.static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 external.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 profile.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 fb.me
127.0.0.1 ogp.me
127.0.0.1 fbshare.me
127.0.0.1 .fbshare.me
127.0.0.1 widgets.fbshare.me
127.0.0.1 on.fb.me
#End code block
===========================

#Begin code block - twitter and related hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost

127.0.0.1 twitter.com
127.0.0.1 www.twitter.com
127.0.0.1 platform.twitter.com
127.0.0.1 a0.twimg.com
127.0.0.1 a1.twimg.com
127.0.0.1 a2.twimg.com
127.0.0.1 a3.twimg.com
127.0.0.1 dev.twitpic.com
127.0.0.1 twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com
127.0.0.1 t.co

#End code block

=============================

The above material was from here:
http://forums.radioreference.com/computer/269946-block-google-f-book-crap-using-your-hosts-file.html

In addition to the winhelp2002 hosts file, here is another good one to know and use:
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts
Auric__
2014-02-14 00:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
--
Do you want to know something about my past that nobody else does?
98 Guy
2014-02-14 01:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.

But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.

And besides, Google's usenet search interface is horribly broken
anyways.
Auric__
2014-02-14 06:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.
But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.
Do they go back to the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate of 1992?
Post by 98 Guy
And besides, Google's usenet search interface is horribly broken
anyways.
Can't argue that one...
--
It's like living in a soap opera -- "The Old and the Dysfunctional".
R.Wieser
2014-02-14 08:34:50 UTC
Permalink
98Guy,
There is no rational use-case you can make for needing to
access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-
access AIOE server.
Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go
back much further.
Somehow those two are in conflict with each other you know ...

And no, I do not agree with your "two months should be enough for anyone"
statement one bit. Some messages or conversations have a retention time of
years, depending on the problem/subject they are talking about.

Personally I've found messages that where years old, shedding some new light
on programming problems I was having.

So yes, there is at least one "rational use-case". And I'm sure there are
many others like it. Like posts were users are talking about specific
Win98se problems. Thats really "old shit". :-)

On the other hand, al those binary "warez newgroups" have a rentention value
of days, if not just hours ....

Suggestion: Think a bit further than only what *you* are currently busy
with. Try to step into other peoples shoes and than look around before you
attempt to make (bold) statements like the one above.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.
But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.
And besides, Google's usenet search interface is horribly broken
anyways.
Daniel47@teranews.com
2014-02-14 09:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.
But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.
Just out of interest, I set this group to display all messages (rather
than just new messages) to see how far my free.teranews.com server went
back.

Very surprised that when I selected the first message I had read, "help
please" from neil, posted on 11/03/05 at 04:43, it actually displayed .....

Quote
I am using IE 6
Why does lots pictures in a webpage appear blank with a RED X in the top
left hand corner whilst some pictures are fine. I have 'Show Pictures'
checked in Internet Options Advanced. I also have emptied my cache.

Thanks
End Quote.

Daniel
Auric__
2014-02-14 16:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@teranews.com
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.
But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.
Just out of interest, I set this group to display all messages (rather
than just new messages) to see how far my free.teranews.com server went
back.
Very surprised that when I selected the first message I had read, "help
please" from neil, posted on 11/03/05 at 04:43, it actually displayed
[snip]

I actually prefer to use a feed other than Teranews for my normal
Usenetting. I have a Teranews account -- I've had it for something like 12
years -- but I use it for the binary groups I'm subscribed to. Doing so
limts how much crap I can stuff onto my hard drive at once.
--
Do you ever wonder if it's justified?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2014-02-14 20:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
So there's no point in including it in your hosts file, is there! In
fact a lot of the entries in there seemed to me to be ones that wouldn't
often appear as links _to spurious content_ from other pages, and
therefore, if you include them, you are just stopping yourself from
accessing those sites if you actually want to. (In other words, they're
a political-type agenda - i. e. whoever compiled the list has reasons to
want people to not visit certain sites beyond just speeding things.) And
your host file itself getting large can itself slow down some things.
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Auric__
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
The above comment was contained within the list I posted - I didn't
write it.
But I do agree with it. There is no rational use-case you can make for
needing to access (let alone resond to) posts made more than 2 months
ago - 2 months being the retention time of the free, public-access AIOE
server. Other public-access servers (like netfront and mixmin) go back
much further.
That's very prescriptive of you! Though I wouldn't want to _respond_ to
old posts (known as gillivering or necroposting), I might well want to
_read_ one: some question might arise, and I remember "I saw something
about that in alt.x.y.z a year or two ago (but didn't keep it at the
time)", so want to go back to look for it.
Post by 98 Guy
And besides, Google's usenet search interface is horribly broken
anyways.
Like the other poster here, I certainly agree there - at least, I
haven't looked that recently, but last time I did it was less usable
than it had been.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
law." - Winston Churchill.
Computer Nerd Kev
2014-02-15 06:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
That's very prescriptive of you! Though I wouldn't want to
_respond_ to old posts (known as gillivering or
necroposting), I might well want to _read_ one: some
question might arise, and I remember "I saw something about
that in alt.x.y.z a year or two ago (but didn't keep it at
the time)", so want to go back to look for it.
If you go back to the '90s, the archives of some newsgroups
are full of useful information about old computer hardware.
Sometimes contributed by employees of the manufacturers, and
with details not available elsewhere on the web.

In other areas where time has had less impact on the relevance
of discussions, the insights and ideas in old Usenet posts can
be invaluable. For example when looking for electronics
related topics, I have often found the best and most reliable
information to come from old Usenet posts (in some cases the
information could be relevant if posted any time during
Usenet's existence).
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by 98 Guy
And besides, Google's usenet search interface is horribly
broken anyways.
Like the other poster here, I certainly agree there - at
least, I haven't looked that recently, but last time I did
it was less usable than it had been.
Even before the recent update (which has made me treat Google
Groups as a last resort) I found the search function was
really hopeless, bringing up many unrelated results. Strange
when you consider who made it.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
Hot-Text
2014-02-14 18:20:21 UTC
Permalink
"Auric__"
<***@email.address>
wrote in message
news:XnsA2D3B0C208691auricauricauricauric
@78.46.70.116...
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
Fri Sep 7472 18:42:09 +01:00 1993

Google-bots spyware is always looking for a Way in to your News Groups

Googlebot-Image/1.0
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)

He said Ping: 78.46.70.116
Ports: 21, 80, 443

I hope we don't see
A Image of your Ass..........

22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 5.3 (protocol 2.0)
80/tcp open http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))
119/tcp open nntp InterNetNews NNRP server 2.6.0 (20130705 snapshot)
443/tcp open ssl/http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))

Welcome to news.eternal-september.org
Googlebot
May we send Auric__Post
to Google Groups for you

Thank You using
Google-bots

127.0.0.1 www.google.com
code will block -
Google and related hosts
Auric__
2014-02-15 00:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hot-Text
"Auric__"
wrote in message
news:XnsA2D3B0C208691auricauricauricauric
@78.46.70.116...
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
Fri Sep 7472 18:42:09 +01:00 1993
Google-bots spyware is always looking for a Way in to your News Groups
Googlebot-Image/1.0
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)
He said Ping: 78.46.70.116
Ports: 21, 80, 443
I hope we don't see
A Image of your Ass..........
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 5.3 (protocol 2.0)
80/tcp open http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))
119/tcp open nntp InterNetNews NNRP server 2.6.0 (20130705 snapshot)
443/tcp open ssl/http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))
Welcome to news.eternal-september.org
Googlebot
May we send Auric__Post
to Google Groups for you
Thank You using
Google-bots
127.0.0.1 www.google.com
code will block -
Google and related hosts
Big deal.

Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-02-14 17:51 US Mountain
Standard Time
Nmap scan report for 192.168.0.102
Host is up (0.00s latency).
Not shown: 994 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
22/tcp open ssh
37/tcp open time
80/tcp open http
113/tcp open ident
139/tcp open netbios-ssn
445/tcp open microsoft-ds
MAC Address: 00:C0:F0:69:07:65 (Kingston Technology)

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.77 seconds
--
Her life is her own personal hell.
Hot-Text
2014-02-18 19:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Auric__
Post by Hot-Text
"Auric__"
wrote in message
news:Xns A2D3B0C208691 auric auric auric auric
@78.46.70.116...
Post by Auric__
Post by 98 Guy
real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
Not unless you want to see a post that's older than your server carries.
Fri Sep 7472 18:42:09 +01:00 1993
Google-bots spyware is always looking for a Way in to your News Groups
Googlebot-Image/1.0
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)
He said Ping: 78.46.70.116
Ports: 21, 80, 443
I hope we don't see
A Image of your Ass..........
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 5.3 (protocol 2.0)
80/tcp open http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))
119/tcp open nntp InterNetNews NNRP server 2.6.0 (20130705 snapshot)
443/tcp open ssl/http Apache httpd 2.2.15 ((CentOS))
Welcome to news.eternal-september.org
Googlebot
May we send Auric__Post
to Google Groups for you
Thank You using
Google-bots
127.0.0.1 www.google.com
code will block -
Google and related hosts
Big deal.
Starting Nmap 6.40 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-02-14 17:51 US Mountain
Standard Time
Nmap scan report for 192.168.0.102
Host is up (0.00s latency).
Not shown: 994 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
22/tcp open ssh
37/tcp open time
80/tcp open http
113/tcp open ident
139/tcp open netbios-ssn
445/tcp open microsoft-ds
MAC Address: 00:C0:F0:69:07:65 (Kingston Technology)
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.77 seconds
Nmap - Zenmap GUI Big deal.

A2:D3:B0:C2:08:69/1 auric auric auric auric
Auric__
2014-02-18 20:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hot-Text
Nmap - Zenmap GUI Big deal.
A2:D3:B0:C2:08:69/1 auric auric auric auric
Did you have a point to all of this?
--
I was once walking through the forest alone.
A tree fell right in front of me -- and I didn't hear it.
-- Steven Wright
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2014-02-14 20:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
I just came across this, so I thought I'd post it here. Using entries
in the windows HOSTS file to
Block the hidden layer of crap that exists in all corporate websites is
very efficient and one of
the most effective methods available today for people running all versions of Windows, but
particularly for Win-98 users.
Though ghostery old versions do work with Firefox 2:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/versions/?page=2
[]
Post by 98 Guy
#Youtube
127.0.0.1 youtube.com #} you know the story
127.0.0.1 www.youtube.com #}
No, I don't know the story. 127ing those below will perhaps speed things
up, but 127ing those above will just stop you accessing YT altogether.
Post by 98 Guy
127.0.0.1 i0.ytimg.com #} mostly thumbnails, user pictures and
127.0.0.1 i1.ytimg.com #} other unnecessary graphic clutter. Feel
127.0.0.1 i2.ytimg.com #} free to leave blocked, as it also
127.0.0.1 i3.ytimg.com #} improves YT's loading time considerably
127.0.0.1 i4.ytimg.com #}
127.0.0.1 i5.ytimg.com #}
127.0.0.1 s0.2mdn.net #} comment out everything in this segment
127.0.0.1 static.2mdn.net #} from this point down if you need to use
127.0.0.1 www.youtube-nocookie.com #} YT, since these next few servers are its
127.0.0.1 youtube-nocookie.com #} dependencies and can cause major
127.0.0.1 youtube-noscript.com #} functionality problems if blocked
But if you're _not_ visiting YT, are you likely to encounter them?
[]
Post by 98 Guy
#various other G services - main pages
[]
Post by 98 Guy
127.0.0.1 groups.google.com #} real Usenetters don't use Google Groups
127.0.0.1 gg.google.com #}
so wouldn't be going there anyway, so there's no reason to clog your
hosts file with these entries
[]
Post by 98 Guy
127.0.0.1 youtu.be http://youtu.be/AaBbCcDdEeFf is the same as
http://youtu.be/AaBbCcDdEeFf
So what's the point in blocking it?
[]
Post by 98 Guy
#crap from Doubleclick - mostly ad/spyware servers
[]
Post by 98 Guy
#Begin code block - twitter and related hosts
[]
(FWIW 127.0.0.0 allegedly gives up more quickly than 127.0.0.1)

FWIW here's my hosts file - some of these will duplicate some of the
ones you had:

# Copyright (c) 1993-1999 Microsoft Corp.
#
# This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows.
#
# This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each
# entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should
# be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name.
# The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one
# space.
#
# Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual
# lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol.
#
# For example:
#
# 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server
# 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host

127.0.0.1 localhost

127.0.0.0 ads.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 ads.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 api.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 api-read.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 apps.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 ar-ar.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 bg-bg.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 blog.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.0 creative.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 da-dk.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 de-de.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 developers.facebook.com
#127.0.0.0 en-gb.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 en-pi.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 error.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 es-es.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 es-la.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 eu-es.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 facebook.com
127.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
127.0.0.0 fbshare.me
127.0.0.0 fr-fr.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 id-id.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 it-it.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 ka-ge.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 ms-my.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 nl-nl.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 pl-pl.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 pt-br.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 sq-al.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 ssl.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.0 static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 sv-se.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 th-th.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 tl-ph.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.api.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.connect.facebook.com
#127.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.0 www.hs.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.static.ak.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.0 www.thefacebook.com
127.0.0.0 www.www.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 zh-hk.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 zh-tw.facebook.com
127.0.0.0 fbcdn.net

127.0.0.0 en.twitter.com
127.0.0.0 es.twitter.com
127.0.0.0 fr.twitter.com
127.0.0.0 it.twitter.com
127.0.0.0 ja.twitter.com
#127.0.0.0 twitter.com
127.0.0.0 twitterfeed.popmog.com

127.0.0.0 www.twitter.com
127.0.0.0 platform.twitter.com


127.0.0.0 api.ip2info.org
127.0.0.0 ip2info.org

# advertising links:

127.0.0.0 ad.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.0 ad.xtendmedia.com
127.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.net

but ghostery is a better way (though I haven't actually tried it under
'98).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Expectate litteras meas." Translation: "You'll get mail."
98 Guy
2014-02-16 15:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
but ghostery is a better way
I disagree.

========
Ghostery blocks HTTP requests and redirects according to their source
address in two ways: Cookie Blocking and Cookie Protection (where
available). When Cookie Protection is enabled, if a cookie is selected
from Ghostery's list, it is not accessible to anyone but the user and
thus unable to be read when called upon.

Originally developed by David Cancel, Ghostery was acquired by the
privacy technology company Evidon in January 2010. Currently, through
the use of a reporting function named "GhostRank" that users can opt
into, Ghostery provides reports to Evidon about advertisers and data
collectors, which Evidon then provides to advertising industry groups
including the Better Business Bureau and the Direct Marketing
Association, parts of the Digital Advertising Alliance. These agencies
then use those reports to monitor how Online Behavioral Advertisers
operate and, when needed, refer them to the Federal Trade Commission.

Criticism

Some sources say that Evidon, the company owning Ghostery, plays a dual
role in the online advertising industry. Ghostery blocks sites from
gathering personal information. But it does have an opt-in feature named
GhostRank that can be checked to "support" them. GhostRank takes note of
ads encountered and blocked, and sends that information, though
anonymously, back to advertisers so they can better formulate their ads
to avoid being blocked.

Thus, not everyone sees Evidon's business model as conflict-free.
"Evidon has a financial incentive to encourage the program's adoption
and discourage alternatives like Do Not Track and cookie blocking as
well as to maintain positive relationships with intrusive advertising
companies", says Jonathan Mayer, a Stanford grad student and privacy
advocate.

Tom Simonite of Technology Review explains that with the "Ghostrank"
feature enabled Ghostery sends collected user data back to the vendor,
who then offers it for sale to ad firms.[5] This is also reflected in
the German branch of the magazine.[6] Consequently, the German computer
magazine Chip comes to the conclusion to not recommend installing the
software and suggests NoScript as a (partial) alternative.
========

I don't see how simply meddling with cookie access that ghostery
actually prevents your browser from contacting all manner of "nuisance"
hosts (ad-serving, click-tracking, beacons and other web-metrics, etc).
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2014-02-19 00:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
but ghostery is a better way
I disagree.
I suppose I used a shorthand (unless there's something else I said that
you've snipped, and I don't think you did). By "better" I meant "easier"
- which certainly isn't by any means always better!
[]
Post by 98 Guy
privacy technology company Evidon in January 2010. Currently, through
the use of a reporting function named "GhostRank" that users can opt
into, Ghostery provides reports to Evidon about advertisers and data
Though there is no obligation to opt into it. (I can't remember whether
the default, as installed, is to opt in or out.)
Post by 98 Guy
collectors, which Evidon then provides to advertising industry groups
including the Better Business Bureau and the Direct Marketing
Association, parts of the Digital Advertising Alliance. These agencies
then use those reports to monitor how Online Behavioral Advertisers
operate and, when needed, refer them to the Federal Trade Commission.
Criticism
Some sources say that Evidon, the company owning Ghostery, plays a dual
role in the online advertising industry. Ghostery blocks sites from
gathering personal information. But it does have an opt-in feature named
GhostRank that can be checked to "support" them. GhostRank takes note of
ads encountered and blocked, and sends that information, though
anonymously, back to advertisers so they can better formulate their ads
to avoid being blocked.
That does sound plausible.
Post by 98 Guy
Thus, not everyone sees Evidon's business model as conflict-free.
[]
Post by 98 Guy
Tom Simonite of Technology Review explains that with the "Ghostrank"
feature enabled Ghostery sends collected user data back to the vendor,
who then offers it for sale to ad firms.[5] This is also reflected in
the German branch of the magazine.[6] Consequently, the German computer
magazine Chip comes to the conclusion to not recommend installing the
I think that's a bit of an over-reaction: they could recommend not
enabling (or disabling, whatever) GhostRank, certainly.
Post by 98 Guy
software and suggests NoScript as a (partial) alternative.
Very partial. Also, I prefer YesScript; YMMV.
Post by 98 Guy
========
I don't see how simply meddling with cookie access that ghostery
actually prevents your browser from contacting all manner of "nuisance"
hosts (ad-serving, click-tracking, beacons and other web-metrics, etc).
Well, I have the _feeling_ that since installing it, I've had better ...
not sure what. I do appreciate that some of this may be placebo effect.

I don't think it _only_ does it by "meddling with cookie access"; I
think it also prevents the contacting of sites. Certainly, when I go to
a web page, it gives me a list of third party somethings which are
linked from that page, and shows which ones in that list are blocked; I
can choose to have it block all from a list (or several) which I presume
it downloads periodically, or to maintain a blocklist myself: I choose
to do the latter, and add new "trackers" and "widgets" as I encounter
them (which means those sites get one contact and one only from me).

Have you actually tried it (with GhostRank turned off if you wish)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My daughter is appalled by it at all times, but you know you have to appal
your 14-year-old daughter otherwise you're not doing your job as a father. -
Richard Osman to Alison Graham, in Radio Times 2013-6-8 to 14
Loading...