httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Murcko <>
Subject Re: searching domains (fwd)
Date Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:52:33 GMT
I'll delineate my objections, then:

1) This can't work 100% of the time, so what do we save in complaints?
   Users will still complain to admins that their setup doesn't work, and
   admins who turn this on who aren't savvy write bug reports that the
   proxy isn't resolving names.

2) This may very well violate the no-rewrite rules in HTTP 1.1.

3) Weighing the benefits of this change against current and *future* expense
   in terms of support and bad will amongst ignorant sysadmins seems to me
   to come out in a negative balance. We will burn far more energy adding
   "just this one more neat little doodad" and supporting it into HTTP 1.1
   (if it's even legal) than we will gain functionality from having it.

4) It's cruft. Cruft begets code bloat.

Therefore, -1. liltingly intones:
> > I realize no one but Rasmus has been seeing any of my objections to this.
> > 
> > Unless Sameer's acceptance counts as a +1, I've seen none.
> > 
> > As per my previous objections, -1.
> > 
> > So I trick up my DNS so it doesn't reject "nasa" as a URL. So what?
> > I want to go to, and I get What's the point?
> The point is that without going through the proxy, users who just type
> "nasa" into Netscape end up at  You may not like that feature,
> but nonetheless, it is there.  When you install the Apache proxy, this 
> suddenly changes and users start complaining.  My point is simply to make
> the Apache proxy as invisible as possible.  I don't want users to notice any
> difference between going through the proxy and not going through the proxy if
> it can possibly be avoided.  And in this case it can with a very simple 
> patch which will be optional.  
> I don't understand your heated objection to this, especially if it is 
> optional.  It is a feature that at least some admins out there would like to
> have, and in the traditional spirit of Apache, we should accomodate these
> people and give them the option.  I don't think it is the Apache Group's
> place to be judge and jury of how people should configure their systems.
> Especially not with an argument of, "I don't like it, what's the point?".
> Explain to me how it might be a security risk or dangerous in some way,
> and the feature will disappear.
> -Rasmus

Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA
And now, on a lighter note:
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.

View raw message