xp hosts file

[James]

i've some entries in the hosts file. However IE cannot resolve it and
indicate it is a "dns error". However using ip address works as it can goes
to the site

On other similar machines, however it can resolves to the site using dns
name in host file.

What went wrong ?

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "pascual" <[email protected]>


| That's a pretty retarted answer. Many developers, me included, uses thehosts file together
| with virtual hosts in Apache to test thingslocally.
|
| I have the same problem as the starter of this thread, and sadly Istill haven't found a
| solution.-- pascual

No it's a good answer. Usually the 'hosts' file is not needed. However, during development
situations where there is no DNS resolution, adding the host name and IP address to the
'hosts' file is the way to go and one of the reasons it exists in the TCP/IP stack.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "-rwxrw-r--" <[email protected]>


| The HOSTS file is as necessary as notepad. Depends if you're going to make
| use of it. To suggest that it is only needed for development situations is
| not correct. Please learn about some of the other uses for a HOSTS file
| before giving out your incorrect opinions.
|
| --
| Have you been MicroShafted today?
| To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
| To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.

I have studied NFS and the TCP/IP stack. I know what I am talking about. The hosts file is
NOT as needed as an ASCII text editor. That is a really poor comparison. As I have stated
its use is for when there is no DNS resolution. That is what it was designed for. It
certainly wasn't designed for its use present day use in a reversed application of
assigning an alias to the TCP/IP diagnostic responder as some use it for blocking access to
bad web sites. An example being the MVP hosts file. It was never designed to block access
but was designed to assign an alias to a given IP address if there is no DNS resolution.