httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: UseCanonicalName considered harmful
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:48:50 GMT
We're talking 2.0, so Port isn't available anyway.

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> 
> Tony Finch wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, with the addition that any Port directive is used to create the
> > canonical name in preference to the port from the Listen directive, i.e.
> > 
> >         ServerName dotat.at
> >         Port 8000
> > 
> > is the same as
> > 
> >         ServerName dotat.at:8000
> 
> No, that just promulgates the current brokenness.  If there
> was also a Listen 10000 (I assume you omitted an example
> Listen by accident), your method would result in a dotat.at:8000
> even if the request came in on 10000.  I feel that if there
> is *any* ambiguity, the canonicalisation should use the same
> port that the original request used.
> -- 
> #ken	P-)}
> 
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
> Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
> 
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Mime
View raw message