From: "Robert Comer" 

> anyone know if 0.0.0.0 works better than 127.0.0.1? Seems like it would
work
> better but I'm not sure if there are special cases where it would be bad.

0.0.0.0  gets an error condition, and 127.0.0.1 just gets directed inward,
so I guess it depends on the error handler which works faster.  My bet is
it's not going to make enough difference to us mere humans to see.

- Bob Comer


"Geo."  wrote in message news:40d4cb26{at}w3.nls.net...
> That isn't a hosts lists, those are domain names and as numbers and who
knows
> what else, it would be umm.. not a real good idea to add att.net to your
hosts
> file . This is more the type of thing you want
> http://www.everythingisnt.com/hosts.html
>
> anyone know if 0.0.0.0 works better than 127.0.0.1? Seems like it would
work
> better but I'm not sure if there are special cases where it would be bad.
>
> Geo. (how long did it take to print?)
>
> "Richard B."  wrote in message
> news:le73d0pguln479u3eh5egebpbvs55h61k0{at}4ax.com...
>
> > I found a gigantic list some time ago, made the mistake of printing it
> > out.
> >
> > Here it is:
> >
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~joe/spam-friendly-carriers.html
> >
> > - Richard
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5