Re: telnet: could not resolve

2003-06-24 Thread Colin Watson
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 08:21:11AM -0400, Shawn Lamson wrote: > On Mon, June 23 at 2:10 PM EDT > - = k o l i s k o = - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i am using on all woody machines commands like "telnet 0 25" or > > "telnet 0 110" for telnet to localhost port. > > > > Since i upgraded to sarge

Re: telnet: could not resolve

2003-06-24 Thread Shawn Lamson
On Mon, June 23 at 2:10 PM EDT - = k o l i s k o = - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > i am using on all woody machines commands like "telnet 0 25" or > "telnet 0 110" for telnet to localhost port. > > Since i upgraded to sarge on few machines "telnet 0 port" dont work: > > 1 [EMAIL PRO

Re: telnet: could not resolve

2003-06-23 Thread Shyamal Prasad
"Nathan" == Nathan Poznick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Nathan> Use localhost when you mean localhost? I wasn't aware Nathan> that '0' was valid shorthand for localhost. Actually it is. From RFC 1700 ("Assigned Numbers") (a) {0, 0} This host on this network. Can on

Re: telnet: could not resolve

2003-06-23 Thread Nathan Poznick
Thus spake Michal Kolesar: > Hi all, > > i am using on all woody machines commands like "telnet 0 25" or "telnet > 0 110" for telnet to localhost port. > > Since i upgraded to sarge on few machines "telnet 0 port" dont work: > Any idea? Use localhost when you mean localhost? I wasn't aware that