[Dnsmasq-discuss] notracking hostnames.txt
simon at thekelleys.org.uk
Tue Jun 15 22:29:30 UTC 2021
On 15/06/2021 22:19, Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> Am Dienstag, dem 15.06.2021 um 16:29 +0100 schrieb Simon Kelley:
>> On 08/06/2021 10:05, Matthias Bodenbinder via Dnsmasq-discuss wrote:
>>> I have a question about the notracking blocklists in combination with dnsmasq. I have already created an
>>> issue on the notracking
>>> issue tracker but did not receive an answer yet: https://github.com/notracking/hosts-blocklists/issues/596
>>> The instructions for notracking blocklists distinguish between dnsmasq (old: pre v2.80) and newer versions.
>>> In addition to the
>>> domains.txt file notracking also provides a hostnames.txt file. But this hostnames.txt file should only be
>>> used with dnsmasq (old:
>>> pre v2.80):
>>> Why is that?
>> Because the address=/0--e.info/# syntax (which returns all-zero
>> addresses for both IPv4 and IPV6 was only added to dnsmasq in version
>> 2.80. (There's a CHANGELOG file included with dnsmasq that tells you this.)
> I understand your point about the different format of the domain files. But that is not the question.
> The question is: Why do I need an additional hostnames.txt file for older dnsmasq (old=pre v2.80). Why is a
> sinlge domains file sufficient for newer dnsmasq versions?
I don't know, that's really a question for the maintainers of the files,
but I'd guess they've elected to use the new syntax for both domains and
hostnames because it's sufficiently efficient. The older domains method
uses more memory and is slower, and that's compensated for by using
explict hosts, which are much more efficient to look up.
By chance, we're in the process of re-writing all the associated code,
to make this sort of use work much better. That's not yet released, however.
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss