Evan Champion wrote: > > On a slight tangent, the status (in 2.2 at least) does not include the server > port number. The vhost name is fine for name-based vhosts, but we need the > port number to make sense of the status for port-based vhosts. Can the port > be included along with the vhost name (e.g. vhostname:port notation)?
Might be a tangent, but ++1 to fix while we revisit the status record!
