Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:

I don't want to alarm anybody... but I think we may have a potential problem with the fireflyfans.net domain name. A WHOIS query says the domain name has expired:

"Record expires on 06-Mar-2007"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by daveshayne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:

I don't want to alarm anybody... but I think we may have a potential problem with the fireflyfans.net domain name. A WHOIS query says the domain name has expired:

"Record expires on 06-Mar-2007"

---

Looks like the registration is now good through 2008. Thanks for the work around though It may come in usefull in a year. Thanks also to FollowMal. I couldn't for the life of me find that site before and now thanks to you it's bookmarked.

David

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:

Thanks, Asarian!

I just posted to another thread, and then tried to go back to the discussions page and got a "Not Found" error in Firefox v2.0.0.2. So I used your fix action.

Somewhat tougher to do in Vista actually. First I closed all instances of Firefox. Then, I edited the hosts file as you described. But when I went to close out, I couldn't save the edited file directly to the /etc folder it came from. Vista said I lacked administrator permission, even though I was signed on as admin. So instead, I had to save a copy to My Documents, then move it to the /etc folder manually, using Windows Explorer (file manager, not the internet browser, for n00bs). Once it was there, I renamed the original hosts file as hosts.bak, and then deleted the .txt extension from the edited copy. Vista still prompted me for permission at every step, but at least it allowed me to complete the edit. I guess doing a straight file replacement from inside the restricted system32 is okay, but the file is otherwise read-only when attempting to do an in-place open-and-edit of the file itself. A nice security feature, actually, so I'm not complaining too much.

Then I restarted Firefox and got the website back. Now y'all are saying it's all re-registered. But my "Not Found" error occurred even while y'all were saying it had gotten fixed. I'm guessing there's still something going on, and that some folks can't get on.

Please feel free to pass my addendum to your procedure along to any other disenfranchised FFFn subscribers, who likewise use Vista. And thanks again for the tip that kept me on FFFn in the first place, even if I had to modify it a little.



Respectfully,

zoid

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

Has anyone written to Haken about it? I don't have his email (and in all honesty I'm a little lazy....) but I know there are folk who'll get ahold of him about these kinds of things. Sometimes he doesn't even know there's a problem until he's told. He doesn't get on here all that much anymore....

/B]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:
Hi PhoenixRose. :)

---

Quote:

---

Well, I wrote both the Administrative and Technical domain contact for fireflyfans.net; and the Technical contact wrote me back; and they're sorting it out now. So, I'm confident it will get resolved soon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
So, question: why does those two lines work? And why did I have no trouble at school, but when I got home, it wenk berserk?

If it's technical mumbo jumbo, feel free to leave me un-enlightened. I'm just curious.

---

Quote:

---

...My new comp has Vista and despite Zoid's excellent instructions I was afraid to try it.

---

Quote:

---

# Copyright (c) 1993-2006 Microsoft Corp.
#
# This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows.
#
# This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each
# entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should
# be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name.
# The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one
# space.
#
# Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual
# lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol.
#
# For example:
#
# 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server
# 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host

127.0.0.1 localhost
::1 localhost
168.215.229.9 fireflyfans.net
168.215.229.9 www.fireflyfans.net

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
P.S.
Tell me it's not oddly kewl to have Fireflyfans.net scrawled like a street tattoo into a system file like this. Okay. So I'm a geek. Next step: Creating some spurious registry entries and entering Firefly-related places and names as values (i.e., blingin' your own grill)...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave with my hosts file." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, (sorta), Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FollowMal:


I can now reach the site via a simple url type in and go, so I think it's back up and running in my area of the world anyway. YAY!

Good to have our shiny home back!

---

And this morning I cannnot reach the site at all by normal means so I had to come in via the no s route.

Better get to drinkin' coffee..

* goes back up to read Asarian's and Zoid's posts*

www.goodworkspresents.org

Quote:

---

FollowMal has responded to a message you posted

in the 'GENERAL DISCUSSIONS FORUM'
with the topic 'POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH FFF.NET DOMAIN NAME'

You can go to the following URL to read the response.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=27469&m=462231#462231

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I find it interesting that a feature that makes the internet work can also work again us.

---

Quote:

---

Me too (at least at work)!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

It actually seems to be worse than originally thought. Internic's whois gives the domain status as "clientHold" (which is a change). So, the problem is now with the registrar, even though the listed expiration date is 06-mar-2008.

This is just 'ed up. So, unless these people are working weekends... *sigh*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by asarian:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

It actually seems to be worse than originally thought. Internic's whois gives the domain status as "clientHold" (which is a change). So, the problem is now with the registrar, even though the listed expiration date is 06-mar-2008.

This is just 'ed up. So, unless these people are working weekends... *sigh*

---

From the TUCOWS FAQ:

"The domain is put on Hold (either a CLIENTHOLD or a REGISTRAR-HOLD) by the Registrar in order to take the domain offline and give some indication to the domain owners that a renewal needs to be attended to since it wasn't made before the expiry date."

It was on CLIENTHOLD ever since TUCOWS claimed it expired.


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

---