Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:20:49 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Bickers <rbickers@intercenter.net> To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache Virtual Servers (single IP) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970219215222.167B-100000@oz.intercenter.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970219174839.14956B-100000@revelstone.jvm.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970219215222.167B-100000>