$ host -t mx gmail.com
gmail.com mail is handled by 5 gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail.com mail is handled by 10 alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail.com mail is handled by 20 alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail.com mail is handled by 30 alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail.com mail is handled by 40 alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
$ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 72.14.213.27$ host -t mx cisco.com
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-a.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-b.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-c.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-d.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-e.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 10 sj-inbound-f.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 15 rtp-mx-01.cisco.com.
cisco.com mail is handled by 20 ams-inbound-a.cisco.com.
$ host sj-inbound-a.cisco.com
sj-inbound-a.cisco.com has address 128.107.234.204
$ ...etc

This is exactly what I do. I have 3 people who commonly misuse my gmail address, and all share my name. One is a retired Air Force colonel in Virginia, one is a real estate agent in Texas whose wife uses his email address for her clothing design business a lot, and the most recent is an Australian whose daughter has recently gone off to college and uses her dad's email address for some reason. I enjoy vicariously living part of these 3 folks lives. I have found all 3 of their real email addresses, fairly easily, and I forward their mail to them. Generally this encourages them to be more careful about not mis-entering their email addresses on web forms, etc. and in insisting on the correct spelling when giving their addresses to others, thereby reducing the future burden on me. I think all 3 of them greatly appreciate it when I do forward the mis-directed mail to them, and generally I don't twice get misdirected mail from the same source: they do fix the sender's problems for me. If the 3 of them weren't so geographically spread it might be harder -- but there are almost always clues in the email as to whether the intended recipient is in Texas, Virginia, or Australia -- or whether a teen girl, retired AF colonel, or realtor/clothing designer.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/time-machine.html

Ah crap. Me and my lazy googling. Try this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/PM5644-1920x1080.gif

It can take a 1920x1080 signal and use its scaler to render to its panel. Yes. But can any of those TVs actually properly render the thin vertical lines in a test pattern like this one:
http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png
I've not seen one yet that can.
I believe that the "resolution" that they're advertising is the INPUT resolution, not the number of actual pixels on the panel.

I've put this test pattern:
http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png
on every high-end LCD TV I could find near me (I have 6 around the office, 4 Samsung 6000 series 40, and 55-inch, and 2 LG 32 and 47", and not one of them can properly display beyond the 1366 horizontal resolution test lines accurately (and the 1366 lines are mis-aligned on all but one of the TVs).

Just cos you can see a dot on an i doesn't mean that it's using a full pixel to display the dot. Look at this test image on your TV, in full-screen (ie fit to the full screen):
http://www.matoverton.com/video/testcardk_1920.png
Under the solid-gray darkening rectangles, look at the vertical lines -- on the far right set of lines, are they all displayed with equal width? Those lines are 1/1920 of the width of the image. If your TV cannot display this image full-screen with those lines all being equal-width, then it is NOT 1920 pixels wide.

Let me flip that on you: find me ANY tv which has a 1920x1080 panel.

I said "TV" not "Monitor"

The *software* resolution of HD is 1920x1080. There are practically no TVs available today which have panels with more than 1366x768 pixels on them. The fact that these all advertise themselves as being "Full HD" is pretty obnoxiously misleading marketing.

I don't know what planet you live on that you can display 1080 full resolution dots using 600 pixels, or 1920 full resolutions dots using 1024 pixels, but given that the Samsung Galaxy Pad (10 inch version) has 1024x600 pixels, it's complete marketing BS to claim it can play "Full HD". It can't even do 720i/720p, let alone 1080. This is akin to the "1080p" stickers on every TV at the TV store, when all those LCD panels are 1366x768 at the absolutely biggest (and most are less than that). Yes, you can decode content that has that many dots in it. Yes, you may even have some nice hardware scalers and fancy perceptual algorithms for de-artifacting scaled images. But "Full HD"?? Time for a class action lawsuit, is what I say.

WARNING

If you leave this unattended...
...you may get this result.

...and by the way, I'm not sure you can say the DNS is "broken" -- it may be in the case of OpenDNS, but I can definitely picture local DNS administrators implementing a staged IPv6 rollout by having some default IPv4 address returned when a DNS query otherwise only yields AAAA records, and then having a host on that IPv4 address that says "Sorry, you can't access that IPv6 site" or something to that effect.

Right. That is a much better test, because it's doing what I suggested: sending an IPv6 packet, and seeing if it gets through. You're still subject to possible shenanigans like traffic filtering which might block ICMPv6 ECHOs but allow TCPv6 through.