If you try and connect to a site that isn't running a web-server it will just retain the old display and display "Document: Done (x.yyy secs)". It should display an error message. I am running Linux M14 which I compiled myself. mozilla/CVS/Tag is "TSeaMonkey_M14_no_crypto_RELEASE".

*** Bug 34212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

reporter - since you are using m14, this is invalid. M15 builds have a pop-up that tells you the site does not exist: "www.whatever.com could not be found. Please check the name and try again." if you get a m15 build (carefull, the latest ones have some bad regressions), and still see no error message, reopen please. thank you

yup verifed invalid agreeded

I just tested this with "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686; en-US; m15)" and I saw no such error message. Why can't I reopen this bug?

If I go to http://www.mozillla.org, a invalid address, I get an error with the newest m16 nightly.

That is not quite the same issue. You are trying to connect to a site that isn't even in DNS. Using the latest nightly build and trying to connect to http://www.mozillla.org/, I got the same results that you did. However, trying to connect to http://tgivan.com/, a site that exists but that isn't running a web server, and all I get is: Document: Done (0.374 secs) Using Netscape 4.72, I get: Netscape's network connection was refused by the server tgivan.com The server may not be accepting cnnections or may be busy. Try connecting again later. Mozilla should give an equivalent error message.

OK, I'm reopening this and sending it to Networking.

oops, re-open

well, I just tested this with 042008 build under NT and I get "A connection was refused when attempting to contact tgivan.com" dialog. This is worksforme.

verifying bug.

My tests were done under Linux. Does it work under that? It didn't for the latest build I used.

i came across this from the bug on bugzilla where people can't reopen bugs they reported. It looks like this linux bug was verified on win32, not on linux. Sford, could you check this out please? Or stephen, if you're not having the problem any more could you make a note?

assigning to sford to verify this on linux.

Since I couldn't reopen this, I ended up creating a new bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 37991 ***

verified