Re: "Back button problem" when using a Hosts file
- From: "Wesley Vogel" <123WVogel955@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:18:51 -0700
Strange behavior in the Back Button
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsfaq.htm#Button
I use SpywareBlaster, it adds most of what's in the MVPS HOSTS file to
Restricted Sites Zone anyway.
SpywareBlaster
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html
In XP, 0.0.0.0 is an invalid address. In XP, 127.0.0.1 is the loopback
address, a valid address.
loopback address
The address of the local computer used for routing outgoing packets back to
the source computer.
See...
What is loopback address?
http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/L/loopback_address.html
I wouldn't want eDexter running, I would rather have the large, empty boxes
where the ads were supposed to be.
--
Hope this helps. Let us know.
Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User
In news:Oc4lf.16459$Mi5.3523@dukeread07,
Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@xxxxxxxxx> hunted and pecked:
> I'm new to XP (MCE 2005), and find that when I use a Hosts file to
> block ad sites, those sites end up in the Back button list, so the
> button doesn't work correctly. I have to pull down the Back menu
> list and select what I want to go back to. Apparently this is a
> well-known problem.
>
> But when using the same IE 6 and the same Hosts file, this problem
> does NOT occur in Win98SE. That being the case, I wonder if any of
> our esteemed MVP types here might suggest to their contacts at MS
> that this problem could actually be fixed.
>
> Anyway, does anyone have a suggestion for restoring the
> functionality of the Back button? My Hosts file has thousands of
> entries, and I don't want to add them all to Restricted Sites. Is
> there any other setting or registry tweak that fixes it?
>
> In researching this on Google, I found a reference to a program
> called eDexter, which apparently pretends to be the blocked site and
> returns with a 43-byte Gif image. They say this also cures the Back
> button problem. Has anyone here used that program? Does anyone
> have any security concerns about it?
>
> One other thing that's not really related. In my Hosts file, all
> the entries, including localhost, are 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1.
> That's what worked best under 98SE. Is there any reason not to use
> 0.0.0.0 under XP?
>
> Thanks for any help.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Winzsq.exe ??
- Next by Date: Re: Installing Legal Copy of XP Pro
- Previous by thread: Is Explorer copy the same as "copy /v" (Verify)?
- Next by thread: Re: "Back button problem" when using a Hosts file
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
