Re: searching domains (fwd)

[Chuck Murcko <ch...@n2k.com>]

I realize no one but Rasmus has been seeing any of my objections to this.

Unless Sameer's acceptance counts as a +1, I've seen none.

As per my previous objections, -1.

So I trick up my DNS so it doesn't reject "nasa" as a URL. So what?
I want to go to www.nasa.gov, and I get www.nasa.com. What's the point?

rasmus@vex.net liltingly intones:
> From new-httpd-owner@hyperreal.com Thu Nov 21 22:58:12 1996
> From: rasmus@vex.net
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:57:53 -0500 (EST)
> Reply-To: rasmus@vex.net
> Subject: Re: searching domains
> To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> In-Reply-To: <96...@fully.organic.com>
> Message-ID: <ML...@krone.house.mil>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> Sender: new-httpd-owner@hyperreal.com
> Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> > > > All of which is to say the diagram I'd like is the following:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > >      good points. This diagram suits me.
> > 
> > Thanks. :)
> > 
> > So is this module going in the contributors section?
> 
> Not really a module.  I'll rework the patch to make it optional somehow,
> unless Chuck wants to do it.
> 
> -Rasmus
> 

chuck
Chuck Murcko	N2K Inc.	Wayne PA	chuck@telebase.com
And now, on a lighter note:
Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the
incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
		-- G. B. Shaw

Re: searching domains (fwd)

[ra...@mail1.bellglobal.com]

> I realize no one but Rasmus has been seeing any of my objections to this.
> 
> Unless Sameer's acceptance counts as a +1, I've seen none.
> 
> As per my previous objections, -1.
> 
> So I trick up my DNS so it doesn't reject "nasa" as a URL. So what?
> I want to go to www.nasa.gov, and I get www.nasa.com. What's the point?

The point is that without going through the proxy, users who just type
"nasa" into Netscape end up at www.nasa.com.  You may not like that feature,
but nonetheless, it is there.  When you install the Apache proxy, this 
suddenly changes and users start complaining.  My point is simply to make
the Apache proxy as invisible as possible.  I don't want users to notice any
difference between going through the proxy and not going through the proxy if
it can possibly be avoided.  And in this case it can with a very simple 
patch which will be optional.  

I don't understand your heated objection to this, especially if it is 
optional.  It is a feature that at least some admins out there would like to
have, and in the traditional spirit of Apache, we should accomodate these
people and give them the option.  I don't think it is the Apache Group's
place to be judge and jury of how people should configure their systems.
Especially not with an argument of, "I don't like it, what's the point?".
Explain to me how it might be a security risk or dangerous in some way,
and the feature will disappear.

-Rasmus