A Word Regarding Merging HOSTS Files

I've just updated both my MVPS hosts file and then Spybot.

After updating MVPS Both Defender and Online Armor advised me of changes to the hosts file.

Windows defender warned of changes whilst OA actually listed what was being added.

Upon updating spybot S&D and immunising, Defender warned of changes to the hosts file, but OA didn't.

I've viewed the file using WinPatrol and i can see the added MVPS entries but cant see any additions by Spybot. 

Hostsman has since shown 3 less entries between updating MVPS and immunising with Spybot.

So, are you sure spybot doesn't remove redundant entries? 

EDIT: I went to ask the question on spybot's forums and came across this from today From Patrick Kolla:

http://forums.spybot.info/showpost.php?p=237401&postcount=3

Full thread

I have no knowledge as to whether SpyBot's HOSTS file includes "dead" or redundant entries, so I can neither confirm nor deny that statement.   I do know that SpyBot includes updated HOSTS file information as part of its weekly updates.

the MVP HOSTS file is 603.4 k in size.   when SpyBot appends its entries (which is does at the END of any existing HOSTS file), the combined size increases to 844k [based on this week's figures for both programs].

(The SpyBot HOSTS file, by itself, is 260k.)

According to the information supplied at the MVP Hosts file site

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

"in most cases a large HOSTS file (over 135 kb) tends to slow down the machine... in W2000/XP/Vista. [Windows 98 and ME are not affected by this]."

and the site suggests a "work-around" [disabling the DNS Client service... anyone interested can go to that website for details].

Since the MVP HOSTS file [603.4k] by itself already exceeds this "large" size threshold [135k], it would seem that either its users are in fact not hampered by using such large HOSTS files... or else, they've implemented the suggested work-around in order to use larger HOSTS file.   in either case (whether not being negatively impacted by HOSTS file size, or by implementing the suggested work-around), it would seem that they should be able to use an 844k file about as efficiently as they can use a 603.4k file.

Of course, anyone who actually "senses" a slowdown either needs to try implementing the work-around, or else, not avail themselves of "large" HOST file protection.

If I am mistaken about this, I certainly welcome a refutation.   I read the HOSTS FAQ in siljaline's link, and understand the concern.   But unless/until a slowdown is actually realized by the user, I would rather err on the side of caution... i.e., the potential for additional protection, rather than striving for a minimal file size.

---

@dalem29 wrote:
Regarding the link in the first post, scrolling up a bit to the Test Host File entry, the ping cool web search gives the indicated answer, but the ad.doubleclick.net test brings up the doubleclick.net server. Am I doing something wrong. Where is the Host File located so that I can check whether doubleclick is listed there or not?

---

Use a HOSTS Editor as outlined below >

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsfaq.htm#Editor