You have not tried the technique in <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/vhosts/name-based.html> ? By the way I think you need to tell them to use HTTP 1.0.
If I were you and I really can not persuade the third party to fix their HTTP client. I would hack-in the workaround into Apache source. Ed <blog.eonsec.com> On 12/24/07, John Peter Loh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay. I get it. It's on Section 5.1.2. > > But it says... > > "The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the request is being made *to* a > proxy." > > I just need to know if it's possible to force Apache to ignore the > missing Host field (or at least make it insert a default one if it's > missing). Is there such directive? > > Tried googling it but didn't give me an answer. > > Eduardo Tongson wrote: > > No that is not an AbsoluteURI. If that was the request it should be a > > combination of GET+Host according so HTTP 1.1 specification: > > > > GET /some/file.html HTTP/1.1 > > Host: johnpeterloh.com > > > > Ed <blog.eonsec.com> > > > > On 12/24/07, John Peter Loh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> They connect directly to our servers. According to the logs, the URIs > >> are absolute even when we were returning HTTP 200. > >> > >> Just to make sure that we're on the same groud, the header should be > >> like the following to be absolute, right?: > >> GET /some/file.html HTTP/1.1 > >> > >> Eduardo Tongson wrote: > >>> I reread the RFC again. I found out that Host: can be omitted in HTTP > >>> 1.1 if you use an AbsoluteURI. Interestingly Apache does not follow > >>> the specification. I tested it on Apache 1.3.x and 2. Thttpd works ok > >>> with AbsoluteURI. > >>> > >>> The specification also mentions "The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when > >>> the request is being made to a proxy." In your case it is possible > >>> that the third party was previously using a proxy. > >>> > >>> Ed <blog.eonsec.com> > >>> > >>> On 12/24/07, Eduardo Tongson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> On 12/24/07, John Peter Loh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> I had problems with installing wireshark. I got all the headers with > >>>>> mod_dumpio for Apache (what I'll get is almost the same, right?). > >>>>> > >>>>> The only reason I'm not sure if the Host header wasn't sent is that we > >>>>> don't have all the headers sent went everything was fine. > >>>> Yes mod_dumpio is adequate. Per the HTTP RFC the Host header is > >>>> required for HTTP 1.1. If the third party is really using HTTP 1.1 > >>>> from the start there should not be any problem. > >>>> > >>>> Obviously it is their fault because they said the Host header was not > >>>> present before. Tell them that it is unlikely for Apache to talk HTTP > >>>> 1.1 without them sending the Host header. > >>>> > >>>> Ed <blog.eonsec.com> > >>>> > >>> _________________________________________________ > >>> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >>> [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > >>> Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > >>> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >> _________________________________________________ > >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > >> [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > >> Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > >> > > _________________________________________________ > > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
