From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue May 23 13:07:27 2017 Received: (at 27039) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 May 2017 17:07:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34991 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dDDHK-0006zC-Vf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 13:07:27 -0400 Received: from aibo.runbox.com ([91.220.196.211]:45954) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dDDHJ-0006z4-Bb for 27039@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 13:07:26 -0400 Received: from [10.9.9.127] (helo=rmmprod05.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dDDHH-00070q-Vf for 27039@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 19:07:24 +0200 Received: from mail by rmmprod05.runbox with local (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dDDHH-0002gK-UV for 27039@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 May 2017 19:07:23 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [Authenticated user (892961)] by runbox.com with http (RMM6); for <27039@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:07:23 GMT From: To: "27039" <27039@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Re: bug#27039: (tests guix-download) fails when DNS is bogus Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 19:07:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: RMM6 In-Reply-To: <20170523162431.GB15379@jasmine> Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 27039 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:24:31 -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > The guix-download test includes this snippet: >=20 > ------ > # Make sure it fails here. > if guix download http://does.not/exist > then false; else true; fi > ------ >=20 > Unfortunately, many ISPs (such as T-Mobile) return bogus results for > otherwise unclaimed domain names, causing this test to fail. >=20 > Does anyone know if there is some domain that is designed to fail as a > "standard", as is intended to be used for examples > of good domains? http://fail.0 fails to resolve with "ping: bad address 'fail.0'. This was run on an OpenN= IC connected computer.=