dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25
share rss forum feed

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to wolfi

Re: How to block google-analytics

Here is my list of Google servers, that I keep in hosts file to block ubiquitous Google tracking:
# Google tracking sites:
127.0.0.1          google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1      www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1      ssl.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1           googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1       www.googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1       ssl.googleanalytics.com
127.0.0.1         adservices.google.com
127.0.0.1  pagead.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1             fusion.google.com
127.0.0.1      www.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1  partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1               doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1               doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1            ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1      pubads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1                    urchin.com
127.0.0.1            service.urchin.com
 
The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.

--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
said by OZO:

The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.

The hosts file does not support wildcard '*' entries no matter what OS it is used on. Microsoft is not to blame for the lack of wildcard support.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to OZO
said by OZO:

The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.

technically, does *any* HOSTS file "support wildcards"?
--
--Standard disclaimers apply.--

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
said by AVD:

said by OZO:

The list is quite big, because unfortunately Windows hosts file doesn't support wildcard '*' and, therefore, each host name should be listed separately there.

technically, does *any* HOSTS file "support wildcards"?

Technically they don't. And usual explanation is - they were not designed to block name resolutions in the first place. But if they did support of '*', blocking name resolutions would be much more efficient. If you look at examples of HOSTS files usually they contain many lines referring to one domain, but specifying each and every host within that domain, one by one. If HOSTS files supported '*', many of those lines could be substituted with just one line. E.g.:
127.0.0.1 *.google-analytics.com.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:13
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 "


NetFixer
Bah Humbug
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
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.