On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Tom Evans <tevans.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Who can guess if that silly page meant either of these subtle issues >> with the recipe: >> >> *) ".+" in .htaccess won't match a request for "/", but I doubt that's >> the operative part of the exercise. >> *) You Should not redirect if HTTP_HOST is empty, for HTTP/1.0 >> clients, or you might loop. >> >> -- >> Eric Covener >> covener@xxxxxxxxx >> > > Hi Eric > > wrt your second point, it's been my understanding that if you are > using name based virtual hosting, then HTTP/1.0 clients will always be > directed to the first virtual host, and so it is fine to not check for > empty HTTP_HOST in name based virtual hosts, when canonicalizing the > host name. Is this accurate? > not sure -- may not be a practical concern for the reasons you describe (and I didn't test that aspect) -- 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
|