On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Simon Kirby wrote:
> So, well, what's the point? I don't see any advantage to this change.
the point, which i think lots of folks have forgotten, is that there are
security problems with using DNS names controlled by your customers in
your VirtualHost statements.
it's a rea
Martin Kraemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Simon Kirby wrote:
>
>> Hmm, but I can't seem to get it working. Everything seems to come up as
>> the first VirtualHost (Debian Apache 1.3.14-2.1).
>
>Have you set
> NameVirtualHost i.p.ad.dr:port
>(if you use
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Simon Kirby wrote:
> Hmm, but I can't seem to get it working. Everything seems to come up as
> the first VirtualHost (Debian Apache 1.3.14-2.1).
Have you set
NameVirtualHost i.p.ad.dr:port
(if you use name based virtual hosting)?
And I suggest a glan
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 11:47:20AM -0800, Andrew Ho wrote:
> Have you looked at Apache 1.3.12 and up? They allow you to use the syntax:
>
>
> ServerName www.myserver.com
> ...
>
>
> This is super convenient and eliminates the IP managing annoyance. I think
> this would
Hello,
SK>With Apache 1.2, if you change IPs, you don't have to change the
SK>configuration file. You don't even have to restart Apache! Only
SK>HTTP/1.0 requests will have problems during the migration, just as they
SK>would with Apache 1.3.
SK>
SK>With Apache 1.3, you are screwed. The new I
After much pondering, I still think the VirtualHost design after Apache
1.2 is broken. I don't understand why this change was made.
I work at a web hosting company with many shared web servers, and almost
all name-based virtual hosting. So far, we've stuck with Apache 1.2 with
some 1.3 performa
