289356 - "foo.example.com cannot be found please check name and try again"

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[justin meyer]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

After successfully loading a page, in my case a cgi script.  If that script
doesnt print correct headers the browser reports "foo.example.com cannot be
found..".

best way to reproduce.  make a perl script that works, then break it, and reload
the page.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
best way to reproduce.  make a perl script that works, then break it, and reload
the page.

Actual Results:  
same, works for any.  the best thing i can gather is that it is in a different
state after it has successfully loaded a page and you are doing a reload.  if
you are hitting the broken script for the first time, the name and error msg is
correct.

Expected Results:  
my guess is pull the domain or URL out of the request

Comment 1

[Ben Fowler]

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050407
Firefox/1.0+

I don't fully understand.

Is 'foo.example.com' a placeholder for a domain that you control?

What happens if you replace your working cgi script with one that
fails on alternate runs, or 50% of the time at random?

If the headers are significant, are you attempting (intentionally 
or otherwise some sort of re-direct)?

Do you know which host 'cannot be found'? Do you have an http log
or etheral trace showing what is happening?

Comment 2

[dan liberman]

I am getting this error continuously.  Usually trying the same site again goes
through but sometimes it takes 4 or 5 tries.  it can happen on any site or even
a Javascript popup.

Comment 3

[Philip Saunders]

06-13-05: 
I launch Firefox and try to load the home page and I get this Alert window:
“start.mozilla.org could not be found. Please check the name and try again.”

I get this Alert message for all URLs.!??

I have had Firefox working normally on this system. Then my computer had to be 
rebuilt and XP Pro reinstalled with Norton Symantec System Works 2005 loaded 
followed by Norton Internet Security 2004. Now I just reinstalled Firefox 
1.0.4 and it still cannot load any URLs but Internet Explorer is working 
normally. frustrated!  <[e-mail]>

Comment 4

[Thomas K. (:tom)]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Norton Internet Security 2004

Hello Phil.  This bug is not related to your problem.  Bugzilla is not a help
system, please use forums.mozillazine.org for that.

As well, make sure Firefox has permission to access the internet in Norton
Internet Security.  This is the problem.

Comment 5

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 6

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.