From owner-freebsd-isp  Wed Feb 19 19:21:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA11237
          for isp-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:21:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.intercenter.net (mir.intercenter.net [207.211.128.20])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA11224
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:21:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7879 invoked from network); 20 Feb 1997 03:21:23 -0000
Received: from ct1-11.intercenter.net (HELO oz.intercenter.net) (207.211.129.44)
  by mir.intercenter.net with SMTP; 20 Feb 1997 03:21:23 -0000
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:20:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net>
Reply-To: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net>
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970219174839.14956B-100000@revelstone.jvm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970219215222.167B-100000@oz.intercenter.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Cliff Addy wrote:

> not to plan for it by adding an alternate access.  If you're using the 
> 1.1 host header, there *is* no alternative and the user won't have a 
> clue.  Now, as I noted before, I look at this from the perspective of 

There is an alternative, however dirty, as noted in the Apache
documentation. 

The points for sticking with multiple addresses are well made and I agree
it's still necessary in most cases.  I imagine things would've been quite
different had the original HTTP protocol included the Host header. I doubt
we ever would've used multiple addresses.