Thanks for the clarification guys. Followup question though. Does that imply that there is no reliable way to use Virtual Hosting for HTTP/1.0 clients (although probably pretty much non-existant these days)?
Thanks, Eric "Jacques Caron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > At 12:56 21/10/2009, Joe Gooch wrote: >>Also note that the Host header is optional.... Browsers put it in but >>requests could come through without a host header. ( which is why >>apache has directives that work with namevirtualhosts to handle the >>"default" case) > > Host: is mandatory in HTTP/1.1. But in HTTP/1.0 there might be cases where > no Host: header is sent (the Host: header did not exist in the HTTP/1.0 > spec, but that was more than 10 years ago), and obviously nothing prevents > someone from sending a non-conforming request. > > Jacques. > > > -- > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to > [email protected]. > Please contact [email protected] for questions. > -- To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to [email protected]. Please contact [email protected] for questions.
