 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to OZO
quote:
The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.
I have always noticed that buddy,why is that?? -- Is it too hard for windows to deal with 0 " *.google.com " |
|
 NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
 ·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| said by Dude111: quote:
The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.
I have always noticed that buddy,why is that?? -- Is it too hard for windows to deal with 0 " *.google.com " That has been repeatedly answered in just about any thread that discusses using a hosts file for "blocking" instead of its intended purpose. The standard that defines the hosts file does not provide for wildcard entries, and neither Microsoft or Windows has anything to do with that standard (other than an obligation to comply with the standard). I suspect that if MS did decide to make their own proprietary rules for the hosts file, they would be instantly lambasted for trying to corrupt a known and accepted standard.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander. |
|
