Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:10:15 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance impact of large /etc/hosts files Message-ID: <20071212211015.439a673a@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <20071212120214.C22244@wonkity.com> 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> <47600D2B.70306@dial.pipex.com> <20071212120214.C22244@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:05:53 -0700 (MST) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > It may be possible to use an Adblock "subscription" to update a squid > setup. That would provide the best of both. There's no need to do that, you can use a script like adzapper with squid. It's in ports (www/adzap), so you can pickup a new default rule file with port updates. And you can define additional rules and exceptions. The only thing I had to set was some exceptions for sites, I don't mind seeing adds for. There's at least one other add blocking squid redirector in ports.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071212211015.439a673a>