You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by George Hademenos <ha...@sbcglobal.net> on 2003/02/14 04:08:07 UTC
[users@httpd] apology
go to google.com do a search for iis virtual hosts and you will see the oregon.edu findings that only the latest browsers
work...also option 2 is to use 10000 network cards...also not
very useful....not sure about the validity of option 3.
Re: [users@httpd] apology
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Chris Meadors wrote:
> The newer browsers are anything released since 1996. I found this page
> ( http://www.webcom.com/glossary/http1.1.shtml ) talking about HTTP 1.1
> and browser support. Looks like all versions of Internet Explorer,
> Netscape since version 2.0, Mosaic since 2.7, and Lynx since 2.5. All
> the "new" browsers to come after them also have had 1.1 support from the
> start.
We are still off topic here, but I'd like to correct a small but important
piece of misinformation:
That webpage is vague about the relationship of the Host: header with
HTTP/1.1. The Host: header is required by HTTP/1.1, but many HTTP/1.0
browsers also send it. So even though very few browsers fully implimented
HTTP/1.1 until the last couple years, essentially all browers have been
sending the Host: header since around 1996.
> There is nothing to worry about relying on the "Host:" header for
> virtual hosts in the year 2003, on any websever IIS or Apache.
This is true.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] apology
Posted by Chris Meadors <cl...@hereintown.net>.
George Hademenos wrote:
> go to google.com do a search for iis virtual hosts and you will see the
> oregon.edu findings that only the latest browsers
> work...also option 2 is to use 10000 network cards...also not
> very useful....not sure about the validity of option 3.
The message you are talking about was posted in Feb. of 2000. The first
option the "Host:" header is exactly what Apache uses also.
The newer browsers are anything released since 1996. I found this page
( http://www.webcom.com/glossary/http1.1.shtml ) talking about HTTP 1.1
and browser support. Looks like all versions of Internet Explorer,
Netscape since version 2.0, Mosaic since 2.7, and Lynx since 2.5. All
the "new" browsers to come after them also have had 1.1 support from the
start.
There is nothing to worry about relying on the "Host:" header for
virtual hosts in the year 2003, on any websever IIS or Apache.
By the way, this is an Apache list, so stop posting stuff about IIS (and
what ever else enters your mind).
--
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] apology
Posted by George Valpak <gv...@yahoo.com>.
At 09:52 PM 2/13/2003 -0600, George Hademenos wrote:
>well george i am getting old and it is really up to the younger generation to pick up where things are left off and carry on.
>but anyway it does appear that both apache and iis are consistent on their approach.
>
That's the beauty of open standards.... try searching for "HTTP RFC" on google and you can read the details yourself....
How about a little less hyperbole next time, OK? :)
GV
Re: [users@httpd] apology
Posted by George Hademenos <ha...@sbcglobal.net>.
well george i am getting old and it is really up to the younger generation to pick up where things are left off and carry on.
but anyway it does appear that both apache and iis are consistent on their approach.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Valpak
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] apology
At 09:08 PM 2/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
go to google.com do a search for iis virtual hosts and you will see the oregon.edu findings that only the latest browsers
work...also option 2 is to use 10000 network cards...also not
very useful....not sure about the validity of option 3.
I just did that search... the first listings are from some support thread from 2000 and have nothing to do with what you are claiming.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~consult/deptcomp/2000/msg00179.html
George, I am not meaning to be insulting here, but seriously wondering for someone claiming a doctorate I hope you will take this in the helpful and compassionate spirit with which it is intended...has anyone mentioned to you that maybe your reading comprehension is not what it used to be and maybe you should get that checked out?
GV
Re: [users@httpd] apology
Posted by George Valpak <gv...@yahoo.com>.
At 09:08 PM 2/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>go to google.com do a search for iis virtual hosts and you will see the oregon.edu findings that only the latest browsers
>work...also option 2 is to use 10000 network cards...also not
>very useful....not sure about the validity of option 3.
I just did that search... the first listings are from some support thread from 2000 and have nothing to do with what you are claiming.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~consult/deptcomp/2000/msg00179.html
George, I am not meaning to be insulting here, but seriously wondering for someone claiming a doctorate I hope you will take this in the helpful and compassionate spirit with which it is intended...has anyone mentioned to you that maybe your reading comprehension is not what it used to be and maybe you should get that checked out?
GV