3 ms·
One can also null route them as well via 0.0.0.0. Hosts tend to die instantly that way versus timing out with 127.0.0.1
by yareally 14y ago
One can also null route them as well via 0.0.0.0. Hosts tend to die instantly that way versus timing out with 127.0.0.1
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoRouting to 127.0.0.1 is dumb for this reason, especially since you may be running something on port 80.
- thwarted 14y agoUnless you have something listening on the ports that doesn't respond or a firewall that is dropping packets on the loopback interface, "connection refused" is returned right away.
- drzaiusapelord 14y agoYears ago I maintained a popular ad blocking hosts file. I got a lot of complaints when I switched from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0. Some TCPIP stacks just didn't like it. Others had little webservers running on 127.0.0.1 that quickly served up 404's for speed or black jpegs to make things pretty. Someone out there maintained a little httpd for windows that did just that. If it saw a GET for blahblah.jpg it would serve up a black graphic of some random size. It sure beat the default FF or IE error message. Honestly, there's no need for this stuff in the age of browser based ad blocking. I gave up on it when I saw how easy it was to write rules and wildcards in ad block plus. Interest in it fell. I'm surprised to see one still maintained.
- gbaygon 14y agoHere is the 0.0.0.0 version: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/