Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And Thomas doesn't live in Wales, UK, where we notice: > > llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.uk
So I knew about the name of Llanfair, but I saw this and said "is that real?" So I typed (well, cut-and-pasted): ping llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.uk After a brief pause, the following output came. Note carefully the first line. PING llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.u (194.42.244.17): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 194.42.244.17: icmp_seq=0 ttl=40 time=174.3 ms 64 bytes from 194.42.244.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=40 time=172.1 ms 64 bytes from 194.42.244.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=40 time=171.9 ms 64 bytes from 194.42.244.17: icmp_seq=3 ttl=40 time=180.6 ms 64 bytes from 194.42.244.17: icmp_seq=4 ttl=40 time=171.3 ms --- llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.u ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 171.3/174.0/180.6 ms I take it this should prove the point. Someone at ping central got it wrong. (Debian bug report filed.) Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
