From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 23 17:31:28 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA27374 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.gns.com.br ([200.239.56.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27355 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by srv1-bsb.gns.com.br (8.7.5/8.7.5) id VAA05675; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:30:18 -0300 (EST) Received: from dl0122-bsb.gns.com.br(200.239.56.122) by srv1-bsb.gns.com.br via smap (V1.3) id sma005495; Tue Jul 23 21:29:21 1996 Received: by DANIEL.gns.net.br (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.14/2.12um) id AA0111; Tue, 23 Jul 96 20:19:56 +0300 Message-Id: <9607231719.AA0111@DANIEL.gns.net.br> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 20:19:55 +0300 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" Subject: Re: Virtual domains? (fwd) To: hackers@freebsd.org Reply-To: e8917523@linf.unb.br X-Disclaimer: Klaatu Barada Nikto! X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] for OS/2 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'm not sure if the virtual domains question came from here or current, but... Forwarded message: > > >> "Software Virtual Servers" are part of the http/1.1 standard (proposed), > >> and were first implememted by the Netscape servers. One thing to remember > >> with these "non-ip based" virtual servers is that to date, only Netscape > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> Navigator sends the required HEADER to let the web server know the NAME of > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> the domain it's after. So if most of your hits are coming from Nav. 2.0 or > >> higher, it's safe to use Software Virtual Servers. If you have a lot of > >> hits from places like AOL or Compuserve, however, it would be a bad idea > >> to implement either Netscape's or Apache's new virtual domain method. > > > >Is that so? > > No. Lynx2-5 sends a Host: header as described in the > HTTP/1.1 working drafts. > > I don't know about AOL/Compuserve, but I'd be surprised > if the current client didn't. The July 1996 HTTP/1.1 RFC is in > last call, and the procedure is not "new" at this point (been > in wide use for more than a year). Which remind me I should check if the lynx port has already been updated to, at least, 2-5. It should be a matter of two minutes, *after* understanding the port process (:-), since 2-5FM (I don't know about 2-5) has been accepting "make freebsd" and "make freebsd-ncurses" (which requires an additional -DNCURSESHEADER to be inserted) for some time now... -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@gns.com.br e8917523@linf.unb.br