From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 12 16:32:46 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159E916A417 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D25A13C46A for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) X-Trace: 301986/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.163.7 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 62.241.163.7 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: xfb52@dial.pipex.com X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAEecX0c+8aMH/2dsb2JhbAA Received: from blaster.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.163.7]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2007 16:32:44 +0000 Received: from [192.168.23.2] (62-31-10-181.cable.ubr05.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.10.181]) by blaster.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC00E000089; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:43 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <47600D2B.70306@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:43 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061205 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <475E0190.7030909@pacific.net.sg> <475EC215.8060004@dial.pipex.com> <475F4209.8080507@pacific.net.sg> <200712120920.46626.nvass@teledomenet.gr> <475F9648.804@pacific.net.sg> <20071212085939.F21510@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20071212085939.F21510@wonkity.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:46 -0000 Warren Block wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Erich Dollansky wrote: > >> If you still see unwanted content, just add a line and it will be >> gone during your next visit. > > Like AdBlockPlus, only more work. > >> The beauty is, Internet feels still faster then before. > > Like AdblockPlus. > >> It has one advantage over all those ad removal tools. It filters what >> I do not like. It has nothing to do with censorship, it just gets rid >> of all the crap hanging around on every corner of a web page trying >> to sell you anti virus software or larger dicks. > > Like AdblockPlus. What is the one advantage? > > There are some differences: AdblockPlus removes the ads and lets the > browser use the space, rather than showing broken pages. And you can > customize blocked sites differently for different users. And you can > easily disable it. And it doesn't impact the whole system, just the > browser. And you can block on regexes, so you don't need hundreds of > entries to block the big ad farms. According to it's web pages "*Note*: It is recommended to use at least Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0, SeaMonkey 1.1 or Songbird 0.2. Older versions receive less testing and support for them is likely to be dropped in a few months." The other schemes mentioned in this thread (hosts, DNS, squid) work with any and every web browser. The OP already said he doesn't use Firefox. I myself still use Mozilla, Opera, and (heaven help me) IE, none of which are on the list. As I've already mentioned, I see no broken pages because I don't break the layout (usually), and the post about squid talked about clear gifs as replacements which again would not break anything. AdblockPlus is a valid alternative *if you are just a Firefox user*, but for everyone else, some other solution is required. --Alex