On 07/09/12 18:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> No point in you continuing to use some broken resolver, yes. > > I have to object. At the time I was checking that, the name was really > unresolvable. It is resolvable now. Jiddani and the OP apparently checked > when the problem was real, you did when it was not. It has nothing to do > with broken resolver on jiddani's side. > > I just did not check more deeply into the problem before, but I got this: <snip> > apparently both servers for c3sl.ufpr.br were not reachable at the time. Good point. I apologize for my rash reply. It was an overreaction to Dan's - let's say - "peculiar" way of reporting problems. Cheers -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature