Very Computer

I've read the man pages on this, and as you know I try my best help out people
on the newsgroup.

I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
bad thing ?

Cheers

Neil

1. Very old browsers don't support them.  (Sorry, I can't define "very
old" exactly.)

2. You can't use them with SSL.

In general, I know of no reason to use IP virtual hosts unless you
need SSL.

--
Joshua Slive

http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/

Quote:

> I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
> bad thing ?

They're not.  If you've found a reference that says they're a problem, look
at the date on it.

For example, the Apache documentation on the subject is over three years
old.  In early 1997, there may indeed have been a legacy issue of browser
support.

--
Nick Kew

Quote:> > I'd really appreciate anyone's views on why name based virtual hosts may be a
> > bad thing ?

> 1. Very old browsers don't support them.  (Sorry, I can't define "very
> old" exactly.)

Just as a data point, it's my recollection that NCSA Win Mosaic 3
(which would have been rolled out around the time that NCSA decided to
get out of developing browsers) didn't send a Host header and thus
couldn't do name-based hosts on its own.  However, it did support
proxies, so if you stick a proxy in front of it, it can still browse
name-based hosts just fine.