Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:16:24 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: UseCanonicalName Off *surprise*
Message-ID: <20031219171624.GF20578@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20031219095535.01795540@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20031219095535.01795540@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:04:15AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> UseCanonicalName Off, Host: header provided (HTTP/1.1)
> 
>   The host name header *excluding the host header port suffix * of the request 
>   is concatenated to httpd 1.3's Port directive setting or the real port number
>   in httpd 2.0.  

The Port directive has some muddled ServerName/UseCanonicalName semantics
which is what distinguishes it from the Listen directive. I think the
behaviour you describe is intended.

> Now this might appear to be a moot issue, but if a proxy that doesn't mangling
> headers bounces requests from port 80 to another server's port 8080 attempting
> to impersonate the front end proxy, everything should work, in theory, with
> UseCanonicalName Off.  As it turns out, UseCanonicalName must be turned
> on to avoid the port :8080 suffix from being appended to the redirects.

In this situation you should be using Listen rather than Port. Is 2.0 different?

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
SHETLAND ISLES: NORTHWEST 4, EASING VARIABLE 2. LATER INCREASING EAST THEN
NORTHEAST 5 OR 6. MAINLY FAIR, ISOLATED SHOWERS. GOOD. MODERATE.