httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: bug o' the week
Date Sat, 23 Aug 1997 03:19:39 GMT
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Neither the 1.1 nor the 1.2 code work as you describe Alexei.  Go check
> for yourself, and remember while you're at it that you should try every
> single permutation of <VirtualHost> sections, because ORDER IS VERY
> IMPORTANT, what works in one order will not work at all in another order.

Okay... I wasn't being clear in what I was saying. I am very well aware
that the 1.1 and 1.2 virtual host code is screwed up. I agree that 1.3 is
better, and I agree with everything you have said about how it should

Here is all I was attempting to say: You indicated that the format Brian
sent, if it worked, was a bug. I am only saying that the ability to do
exactly that was something that I had in mind when I wrote the original
code for 1.1, and tried to make it do..

I agree I did a terrible job of making it work. I agree it's better to
take that out entirely. I understand that if that "feature" works at all
in 1.1 or 1.2, it is very depedent on a number of very odd and esoteric
elements in your config file, these elements changing from release to
release. I agree that 1.3's code works better.

All I'm saying is that the functionality Brian presented was an intended
feature of the Host: code in 1.1. It wasn't documented, it wasn't
commented, it didn't work, but it was an intended feature. In other
words, my message was historical, not technical.

That's all I'm saying. I don't want to remove any of your changes, I
think it works fine as is. We should let it go, and fix it all in 2.0,
with something that works.


> In 1.3 a host is either an ip-vhost or a name-vhost, or the main server. 
> It does not pretend to be one or the other.

Right. This is how it should be. I'v blamed Brian for the behvaior in 1.1
on up, because he's the only person I clearly remember advocating using
<VirtualHost> for both IP and name-based servers, instead of seperatly
named sections that would make the distinction clear (as I orignally
proposed), although there were many others at the time, and no one voiced
any objections.

We were wrong.

> In 1.1 and 1.2 any request coming in on the main server address can reach
> any host, ip-vhost or name-vhost alike.  This is a bug in my opinion.
> Consider and on the same machine,
> remember that "Host: www" is a valid header, then imagine two different
> configs in which one is the main server and the other is an ip-vhost.

Ironically, the fact that it lets you do this was intended to be a
feature. It obviously didn't work.

-- Alexei Kosut <>

View raw message