127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0

[Former user]

HI.

Great job on this fork!

Here is an idea for a small, yet significant improvement...

Namely to use 0.0.0.0 instead of using the standard loopback address.

Difference is that 127.0.0.1 has to go through the TCP stack, even though it's local. Whereas 0.0.0.0 is always deemed invalid and requires no validation, which makes it very fast.

Now image one is using a large hosts file (say 15000 lines), then that would slow resolution/blocking considerably.

Just my 2¢.

Mark T.

[Matthew Linton]

Issue #9 was marked as a duplicate of this issue.

[Matthew Linton]

I do plan to add a config option that will allow you to configure the redirect address. That should get added to the next version.

[Matthew Linton]

ADDED: 3192406 October 2016 Preview of Monthly Quality Rollup for Windows Server 2012 ADDED: 3192404 October 2016 Preview of Monthly Quality Rollup for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 ADDED: 3192403 October 2016 Preview of Monthly Quality Rollup for Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 ADDED: 3184143 Remove software related to the Windows 10 free upgrade offer [UNNEEDED] Added configuration option to disable windows updates uninstall and hide Fixed issue of routes not being added under some configurations BUGFIX #8 : 127.0.0.1 instead of 0.0.0.0 (Feature request) Added configuration option to set host redirect IP for hosts file Added configuration option to set routes redirect IP for hosts file BUGFIX #10 : Bug: duplicate entries in hosts file

→ <<cset 08c94135ca06>>