Tuesday, Tuesday, August 21, 2001, 10:55:46 PM, Peter Kiem wrote:
> Hi William,
>> Thus, this issue with ports is really not one with a negative customer
>> impact.
> There is a SERIOUS issue with putting webs onto different ports which *can*
> greatly impact your customers.
> Many people access websites from behind corporate firewalls (or personal
> firewall software) which is only configured to allow traffic from ports 80
> and 443. I have been behind such firewalls (and proxys) and when the website
> is on a different port I simply cannot load it at all!
This is rare though.
>> The only time it is not preferable is if you have a site where people
>> are going to be typing https://securesite/ which is VERY rare in my
>> experience.
> Not at all. There are systems like webmail systems etc which people will
> want to bookmark and then later on come back DIRECTLY to the SSL site.
> I have quite a few bookmarks in my favourites that are direct SSL sites :-)
Yes, but when you bookmark one of these sites, the port number will be
in the bookmarked URL.
>> But to address this, you could create a "Default" generic site on the
>> regular ssl port (443) that links to the SSL sites that you host on
>> that IP with the correct linkage.
> What SSL cert would you serve on that port? I cannot see how you wouldn't
> get the browser complaining that the cert doesnt match the requested domain.
Create a "default" one. Yes, the warning will come up, but that's
not a big issue really.
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo
