On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:18:41 -0700 Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:42:57 -0700 > > Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:41:57AM -0300, Renato Gondim Filho > > > wrote: > > > > Yes, but the computer is not connected to the LAN. Here is the > > > > hosts file: > > > > > > > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > > > 127.0.1.1 blaster > > > ^ > > > > > > its possible that could be the problem, should be 127.0.0.1 > > > > > > A > > > > Don't think so. It is often advised to separate the hostname and > > localhost in the above manner. The address 127.0.1.1 is a valid > > address. But it's always worth a try, of course ... > > huh. I won't argue the point as I don't know. But is it still a > loopback address? 'cuz if its not that could cause problems if some > process is looking for 'blaster' instead of 'localhost'. do please > educate me on that if you know. > > A Yes, it's a valid loopback address. Try pinging it ;-) -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
