On 11/28/09, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Eric Covener wrote: > > > On 11/28/09, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > ;-) > > > I just wanted, once, to use a subject line with capitals and an > > > exclamation mark. > > > > > > It seems however that in this particular case, neither Tomcat nor > Apache > > > httpd follow the rules, when they default to the .. default virtual > host > > > in the case where they cannot find a match between the Host: header and > > > one of their defined virtual hosts. > > > Doesn't the following say that they MUST return a 400 status ? > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec5.2 > > > > > > > No, they only have to return a 400 when they believe the provided Host > > is invalid on the server. Neither server treats hostnames that have > > not been explicitly enumerated as being invalid on the server, and > > this is not a requirement of the RFC. > > > > > > Aha. Thanks for the clarification. > > So how do you enumerate invalid hosts explicitly then ? > I should have qualified that that is just my inter[retation. httpd doesn't let you describe such a thing, as the name-based vhosts "default vhost" behavior is not configurable. -- Eric Covener covener@xxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|