[conspire] Inserting Ads Into Message Postings?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):

> > To serve up authoritative nameservice for advertising domains, you must
> > choose a nameserver daemon _capable_ of authoritative service.  Dnsmasq
> > will do that; dproxy will not.
> 
> Not so. If the only DNS server a machine is using is running dproxy, then
> all DNS requests of any kind go through it and respect the /etc/hosts file
> on the machine running dproxy. The drawback in this scenario is that you
> cannot use wildcards in /etc/hosts.

Your suggestion _would_ be relevant if the goal were to redefine IP
assignments for a specific set of known hostnames.  However, you
may recall that we were talking about asserting local control of entire
advertising _domains_.  

I don't know aobut you, but I'd find continually adding
pagead1.googlesyndication.com, pagead2.googlesyndication.com,
pagead3.googlesyndication.com... to be futile and primitive:  We 
thought that approach was really clever briefly in the late '80s - early
'90s, and then remembered "Oh yeah, we could be doing _real DNS_,
instead."

Which is why I long ago switched to solving this problem by doing real
DNS, and ceased dumb half-measures like adding obnoxious FQDNs to
/etc/hosts. 

Which reminds me, my brief re-reading of Dnsmasq documentation
suggests that one _cannot_, in fact, in any general sense do full
authoritative DNS for domains; it appears that one can merely declare
local definitions for specific hostnames that one wishes valid within
one's NATted LAN.  In other words, not really any improvement over
/etc/hosts entries.