Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:16:27 +0100 From: Stuart Henderson <sh@octarine.org> To: James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net> Cc: Stuart Henderson <stuart@eclipse.net.uk>, Mitch Vincent <mitch@venux.net>, "Lester A. Mesa" <netadmin@primex.prontel.net>, <isp@freebsd.org>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How many Virtual Hosts? Message-ID: <955577787.38f4f5bb2a45c@webmail.octarine.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10004121540230.528-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10004121540230.528-100000@bsdie.rwsystems.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>: > You don't *have* to bind each virtual > host under Apache, it's just that > some browsers and crawlers don't like > it. - Jy@ It's not necessary to bind to each virtual interface individually, you can bind to 0.0.0.0 and look at the request to see the destination IP (as opposed to software virtual hosting using the Host: header). The worst problems with using the Host: header for mass hosting are related to errors in some IE versions. I've seen a few requests with the domain name missing a few components from the end (www.foo rather than www.foo.co.uk), and also it appears that in some cases, HTTP redirection causes it to send the original hostname rather than the new hostname specified in the Location: header (this happens with some search engines: actually I think it maybe dependent on the HTTP result code sent with the redirect). Also as you say some crawlers don't supply Host:, though this situation is improving. There are good open-source alternatives to Apache, however it's common for them to specialize. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?955577787.38f4f5bb2a45c>