We're talking 2.0, so Port isn't available anyway. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > Tony Finch wrote: > > > > Yes, with the addition that any Port directive is used to create the > > canonical name in preference to the port from the Listen directive, i.e. > > > > ServerName dotat.at > > Port 8000 > > > > is the same as > > > > ServerName dotat.at:8000 > > No, that just promulgates the current brokenness. If there > was also a Listen 10000 (I assume you omitted an example > Listen by accident), your method would result in a dotat.at:8000 > even if the request came in on 10000. I feel that if there > is *any* ambiguity, the canonicalisation should use the same > port that the original request used. > -- > #ken P-)} > > Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ > Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ > > "Millennium hand and shrimp!" >
-- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
