From: "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:15 AM
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'd even go so far as depreciate the Port directive in favor of a more
> > decorated ServerName directive (joespages.org:80) where port 80 is
> > assumed.
>
> If we don't really need Port ('cause we don't need a port number in
> addition to what is specified on the Listen statement), then I'm all
> for dropping Port. But if we need the functionality of Port I'd
> rather see it remain as-is than overload ServerName like that.
How is that 'Overloading'? ServerName specifies the name the server answers as.
Port (when Listen is specified) degrades to specifing the port the server answers as.
It's (if I've got this right) nothing more than identity, no? I wouldn't
consider that 'overloading' ... I'm certain IPv6 and other protocols introduce
all sorts of naming/identity issues, and this just brings them together in the
'right place'.
Bill
