* Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020725 23:14] wrote:
> > Yes, that code is very broken indeed. It probably was supposed to
> > call __rpc_setconf("udp") and not getnetconfigent("udp"), but that
> > seems to pick up an ipv6 address. I think the best plan is to go
> > back to the way that part of
> Yes, that code is very broken indeed. It probably was supposed to
> call __rpc_setconf("udp") and not getnetconfigent("udp"), but that
> seems to pick up an ipv6 address. I think the best plan is to go
> back to the way that part of the code was before revision 1.10.
>
> Could you try the follo
