From: "dean gaudet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 3:31 PM
> just put the port into the servername, it makes more sense as one
> directive.
And the scheme :-? ++1
ServerName https://www.foo.net:8443/
solves all of our longstanding problems.
Bill
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > On Friday 10 August 2001 05:06, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> > > > > > if Listen is used to set the server port, and Port is not configured,
> > > > > > ap_get_server_port returns the default port (80). this breaks
> > > > > > mod_dir redirects if Listen is something other than 80.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that was the whole point of the Port directive in the first
> > > > > place.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for stating the obvious, I missed the point of your message. The
> > > > answer is still that this is the expected behaviour, though, at least
> > > > according to my reading of the docs for the Listen directive, which say:
> > > >
> > > > "Note that you may still require a Port directive so that URLs that
> > > > Apache generates that point to your server still work."
> > > >
> > > > <shrug>
> > >
> > > Bleh... We've had this discussion before and I think the conclusion was to
> > > get rid of the Port directive entirely. The behaviour Doug reports is
> > > nonintuitive in the extreme and should be eliminated IHO.
> >
> > You can not get rid of the Port directive. It is an important directive that is
>there to
> > allow admins to configure their server to report a different port than it actually
> > uses. This is the exact same as the ServerName directive, which is another
> > one that can't go away.
> >
> > Ryan
> > _____________________________________________________________________________
> > Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
