Andrew M. Bishop
Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:38:08 -0800
Miernik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andrew M. Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It would need a new special case configuration option to map all > > servers expect specified exceptions. > > Yes, and I hope such option will appear one day :) > > > It would be annoying to change the configuration file for every server > > that doesn't work with both http://www.foo and http://foo. > > One would only have to change the configuration file for servers that > don't work with http://foo. This is not the only case where the configuration file will need to be edited. I can think of three other scenarios that I have come across at various times: Servers that do respond to http://foo but redirect all such requests back to http://www.foo. Servers that give different responses for http://www.foo and http://foo. Servers which use http://www1.foo and http://www2.foo but not http://www.foo (or at least those that do not use http://foo). > > At the moment the worst that happens is that the same server is cached > > twice, with this new option it would make some servers inaccessible > > (except by config file editing). > > It would only affect people which set this option to strip www by > default in the config file, and so this option would only be used by > those who don't mind editing the config file when encountering an > inaccessible server. This is the problem, the option will only be used by a very small group of people. Most will not want to edit the configuration file several times each day to add in new servers. -- Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew M. Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/ WWWOFFLE users page: http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.8/user.html