Re: Apache and CF
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:03:15 -0400, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While you can't read the IIS metabase directly very easily, IIS isn't prone > to having people screw up the httpd.conf file with typos, either. In > addition, it's very easy to see what's going on in the IIS management > console. > This is a pretty easy problem to work around (though these are the paths for FreeBSD): $cp httpd.conf httpd.conf.bak $ee httpd.conf (edit file here with your editor of choice) $/usr/local/sbin/apachectl configtest (if it fails, you can revert to the backup, or compare them... also configtest will give you verbose output as to where/why it failed) $/usr/local/sbin/apachectl restart There are a few different web/GUI based ways out there of mucking around in httpd.conf as well if it's too scary for someone. - Brandon -- -- http://devnulled.com http://spooled.net [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: Apache and CF
> But now, after several years of wrestling with web servers, I'm firmly > with the "IIS is rubbish" crowd, from my own painful personal > experience. > > I've had no end of trouble with IIS over the years, from the constant > security holes and exploits making it almost a full-time job just to > keep the damn thing reasonably safe, to configuration being dropped and > sites disappearing for no apparent reason, to the inability to have any > confidence in backups, to the fact that it's totally insecure by default > and you have to sit down and work at a vanilla install for several hours > before anyone with an ounce of knowledge would dare make it public.. > etc etc, you get the idea It doesn't take several hours to securely configure IIS. I've never had a problem restoring from an IIS metabase backup in minutes. I deal with a lot of IIS servers, and I don't usually have to deal with security problems, as I've configured them securely before deploying them. The vast majority of IIS exploits take advantage of functionality that practically no one uses, and that can be safely disabled or removed. IIS can be managed through a scripting interface, as well as through the IIS management console, so it's pretty easy to build scripts that do repetitive tasks and reuse those scripts. > With Apache, all config is done with text files, which means that it > can be easily backed-up, altered and re-applied by an automated release > process (e.g. an ANT script) or even by a CF script, or rolled back to > a previous version if you've made a mistake You can do this with metabase backups in IIS as well, although it's a little harder to alter an offline metabase backup. > and when it goes wrong (which, in my experience, it virtually never > has) you can easily look at it and see EXACTLY what the software itself > is seeing, in a human-readable format. After a little practice, it's > actually pretty easy to debug. While you can't read the IIS metabase directly very easily, IIS isn't prone to having people screw up the httpd.conf file with typos, either. In addition, it's very easy to see what's going on in the IIS management console. > Admittedly, I haven't used IIS for a couple of years, so > it may have improved a little... IIS 6 uses XML for its metabase, and you can directly edit it if you like. You can even have edits take effect without cycling the server, I think. > Also, if you develop and test on Apache for Windows, you can very > easily deploy a site on a UNIX or Windows platform without having to > worry about the web server config side of things. I suspect the most common web server configuration issue is the creation of virtual directories, in which case paths would be different between Unix and Windows. > Apache is by far the most commonly-used web server out there ... and > yet how many security alerts do you hear about worms / viruses / DDOS > attacks targeting vulnerabilities in Apache? Now how many for IIS? Who cares? What I care about is how many attacks target vulnerabilities on my servers. I'm really not all that concerned about all the poor folks who don't know how to configure their servers (or in the case of many desktop users, don't even know they're running them!) > The prosecution rests, m'lud (or "your honour", for you Americans > ;P) Case dismissed due to lack of evidence. The defendant is free to go. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
On Wednesday 30 Jun 2004 10:59 am, Alistair Davidson wrote: > security alerts do you hear about worms / viruses / DDOS attacks > targeting vulnerabilities in Apache? Bad timing :-) -- Tom Chiverton Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: Apache and CF
IIS 6 is much, much better. If i had a choice we'd be using Apache though, but I don't ;p -Original Message- From: Alistair Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 June 2004 10:59 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Apache and CF "... the point being (when taken in context with the rest of this paragraph), so many people complain that IIS is rubbish etc etc etc. but that is 90% because they are rubbish etc. etc. etc. and don't actually do any configuration of their server, IIS and so on. ;o)" Personally, when I started out with web development back in the arse-end of the twentieth century, I used to love IIS for just the reason Thomas stated - "wow, a GUI? Isn't it pretty? And I can look like I know what I'm doing when I really don't" But now, after several years of wrestling with web servers, I'm firmly with the "IIS is rubbish" crowd, from my own painful personal experience. I've had no end of trouble with IIS over the years, from the constant security holes and exploits making it almost a full-time job just to keep the damn thing reasonably safe, to configuration being dropped and sites disappearing for no apparent reason, to the inability to have any confidence in backups, to the fact that it's totally insecure by default and you have to sit down and work at a vanilla install for several hours before anyone with an ounce of knowledge would dare make it public.. etc etc, you get the idea With Apache, all config is done with text files, which means that it can be easily backed-up, altered and re-applied by an automated release process (e.g. an ANT script) or even by a CF script, or rolled back to a previous version if you've made a mistake - and when it goes wrong (which, in my experience, it virtually never has) you can easily look at it and see EXACTLY what the software itself is seeing, in a human-readable format. After a little practice, it's actually pretty easy to debug. Admittedly, I haven't used IIS for a couple of years, so it may have improved a little... Also, if you develop and test on Apache for Windows, you can very easily deploy a site on a UNIX or Windows platform without having to worry about the web server config side of things. Apache is by far the most commonly-used web server out there ( e.g. http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200405/index.html reckons it has a 70% market share across 14 million servers ) and yet how many security alerts do you hear about worms / viruses / DDOS attacks targeting vulnerabilities in Apache? Now how many for IIS? The prosecution rests, m'lud (or "your honour", for you Americans ;P ) Alistair Davidson Senior Technical Developer Headshift.com -- HEADSHIFT >> www.headshift.com T: 020 7357 7358 -- smarter > simpler > social > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: Apache and CF
"... the point being (when taken in context with the rest of this paragraph), so many people complain that IIS is rubbish etc etc etc. but that is 90% because they are rubbish etc. etc. etc. and don't actually do any configuration of their server, IIS and so on. ;o)" Personally, when I started out with web development back in the arse-end of the twentieth century, I used to love IIS for just the reason Thomas stated - "wow, a GUI? Isn't it pretty? And I can look like I know what I'm doing when I really don't" But now, after several years of wrestling with web servers, I'm firmly with the "IIS is rubbish" crowd, from my own painful personal experience. I've had no end of trouble with IIS over the years, from the constant security holes and exploits making it almost a full-time job just to keep the damn thing reasonably safe, to configuration being dropped and sites disappearing for no apparent reason, to the inability to have any confidence in backups, to the fact that it's totally insecure by default and you have to sit down and work at a vanilla install for several hours before anyone with an ounce of knowledge would dare make it public.. etc etc, you get the idea With Apache, all config is done with text files, which means that it can be easily backed-up, altered and re-applied by an automated release process (e.g. an ANT script) or even by a CF script, or rolled back to a previous version if you've made a mistake - and when it goes wrong (which, in my experience, it virtually never has) you can easily look at it and see EXACTLY what the software itself is seeing, in a human-readable format. After a little practice, it's actually pretty easy to debug. Admittedly, I haven't used IIS for a couple of years, so it may have improved a little... Also, if you develop and test on Apache for Windows, you can very easily deploy a site on a UNIX or Windows platform without having to worry about the web server config side of things. Apache is by far the most commonly-used web server out there ( e.g. http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200405/index.html reckons it has a 70% market share across 14 million servers ) and yet how many security alerts do you hear about worms / viruses / DDOS attacks targeting vulnerabilities in Apache? Now how many for IIS? The prosecution rests, m'lud (or "your honour", for you Americans ;P ) Alistair Davidson Senior Technical Developer Headshift.com -- HEADSHIFT >> www.headshift.com T: 020 7357 7358 -- smarter > simpler > social > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
Thomas Chiverton wrote: > On Monday 28 Jun 2004 17:21 pm, Stephen Moretti (cfmaster) wrote: > > Difference between IIS and Apache is that with Apache, you have to know > > what you're doing before you can use it, with IIS can can get it running > > without knowing a single thing about web servers. > > Ya see, that's a *good* thing :-) heh heh True, but the point being (when taken in context with the rest of this paragraph), so many people complain that IIS is rubbish etc etc etc. but that is 90% because they are rubbish etc. etc. etc. and don't actually do any configuration of their server, IIS and so on. ;o) Stephen [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
On Monday 28 Jun 2004 17:21 pm, Stephen Moretti (cfmaster) wrote: > Difference between IIS and Apache is that with Apache, you have to know > what you're doing before you can use it, with IIS can can get it running > without knowing a single thing about web servers. Ya see, that's a *good* thing :-) -- Tom Chiverton Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
I do think Stephen has a point, about learning curve, althought I have been won over by the easy config as I can port it across development servers and backup configuration changes On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:30:38 -0700, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've been running CF behind apache for years, with no issues. Started with > Apache 1.3 and CF 4.5 (at my current employers), then 2.0 and 6.0, and > currently running 2.0 and 6.1. Never had a bit of problems with the setup. > > We just cycled CFMX when we applied a large update on June 1, and before > that the machines and daemons had been running since September of last year > without interruption. Hard to argue with that. > > MM.com is also running Apache (on Solaris), both pure web server, and > connected to JRun for serving dynamic content. > > Cheers, > barneyb > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Drew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:43 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Apache and CF > > > > Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how > > many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production > > servers? I love apache for my laptop/development environments and I > > swear by OS X (and swear at PC's!) but I havent come across many > > production environments using Apache. > > > > Any good or bad stories? > > > > -- > > Mark Drew > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: Apache and CF
We've been running CF behind apache for years, with no issues. Started with Apache 1.3 and CF 4.5 (at my current employers), then 2.0 and 6.0, and currently running 2.0 and 6.1. Never had a bit of problems with the setup. We just cycled CFMX when we applied a large update on June 1, and before that the machines and daemons had been running since September of last year without interruption. Hard to argue with that. MM.com is also running Apache (on Solaris), both pure web server, and connected to JRun for serving dynamic content. Cheers, barneyb > -Original Message- > From: Mark Drew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:43 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Apache and CF > > Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how > many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production > servers? I love apache for my laptop/development environments and I > swear by OS X (and swear at PC's!) but I havent come across many > production environments using Apache. > > Any good or bad stories? > > -- > Mark Drew > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
> > > good or bad > > Longer uptimes, more responsive, better support and ease of > configuration than > IIS ? How can you resist :-) > But then I find that getting help with apache when there is problem is extremely poor (usually I get sarcastic script kiddies or no response), responsiveness is about the same as IIS, I find IIS stays up just as long as Apache and that configuring Apache is a total pain in the butt, but I can throw a site in to IIS in seconds. Why would I swap? ;o) BTW - I have windows servers with IIS on and RH9 servers with Apache on. Macs... well.. no... frankly the fortnight I've had with stuff to do with macs and browsers the only place for them is where the sun don't shine! <<< personal opinion and responses on how ace the Apple Mac OS is are not required, cos I don't agree. To be honest, I don't much care either way with regards apache and IIS. I had a real hassle getting MX onto an Apache 2.x server, installing MX and apache was easy enough just couldn't get it to pass the pages to CFMX, but now that its up and running I haven't done anything to it since. Difference between IIS and Apache is that with Apache, you have to know what you're doing before you can use it, with IIS can can get it running without knowing a single thing about web servers. With IIS, yes you can just chuck it up and it will work, but not at its best. You have to know what you are doing with IIS, just as much as you do with apache. Regards Stephen [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
This was the response I was expecting (I am won over by apache) I can even run different versions using the virtual hosts (rather than needing to haev windows server to do that in IIS!!!) When I used to run apache on a broadband connection (home machine) I took joy in looking through the logs and see virus and trojan requiests that would have harmed my system if it was IIS simply be ignored by apache. I think the main thing is that in most of the companies that I have worked in the webserver is managed by a different person than the developer... hence it is in the hands of MIS and thus it is IIS On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:15:01 -0400, Rick Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For my own company, I've been using Apache so long with CF on both > Windows and Linux that I can't remember the last time I used CF on IIS. > > We still use IIS here at Duke but I've been very tempted to switch it to > Apache, except I've never done Apache with SSL on Windows and I'm afraid > I might have to re-do my SSL certs. > > - Rick > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
For my own company, I've been using Apache so long with CF on both Windows and Linux that I can't remember the last time I used CF on IIS. We still use IIS here at Duke but I've been very tempted to switch it to Apache, except I've never done Apache with SSL on Windows and I'm afraid I might have to re-do my SSL certs. - Rick [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:43:16 +0200, Mark Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how > many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production > servers? I love apache for my laptop/development environments and I > swear by OS X (and swear at PC's!) but I havent come across many > production environments using Apache. We use Apache 2.0.49 on several Red Hat/Solaris installations we have of CFMX on top of JRun 4. We've never had a problem with it and installation is a breeze. > > Any good or bad stories? Nothing but good experiences with it in a *nix environment, though I can't speak for Windows as we don't use it. Regards, Dave. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
Runs solid as a rock with CFMX 6.1 on Apache2.x == Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 == - Original Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production servers? I love apache for my laptop/development environments and I swear by OS X (and swear at PC's!) but I havent come across many production environments using Apache. Any good or bad stories? -- Mark Drew mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Apache and CF
On Monday 28 Jun 2004 16:43 pm, Mark Drew wrote: > Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how > many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production > servers? We certainly are. > good or bad Longer uptimes, more responsive, better support and ease of configuration than IIS ? How can you resist :-) -- Tom Chiverton Advanced ColdFusion Programmer Tel: +44(0)1749 834997 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BlueFinger Limited Underwood Business Park Wookey Hole Road, WELLS. BA5 1AF Tel: +44 (0)1749 834900 Fax: +44 (0)1749 834901 web: www.bluefinger.com Company Reg No: 4209395 Registered Office: 2 Temple Back East, Temple Quay, BRISTOL. BS1 6EG. *** This E-mail contains confidential information for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. You should not use, disclose, distribute or copy this communication if received in error. No binding contract will result from this e-mail until such time as a written document is signed on behalf of the company. BlueFinger Limited cannot accept responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of this message as it has been transmitted over public networks.*** [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Apache and CF
Talking about http://www.linode.com made me think about something. how many people are running CF (5 or MX) on Apache (1 or 2) on production servers? I love apache for my laptop/development environments and I swear by OS X (and swear at PC's!) but I havent come across many production environments using Apache. Any good or bad stories? -- Mark Drew mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: apache and cf
> I am attempting to set up my workstation with apache 2.0.39, > cf 4.5 on a win 2k pro box. I had no problems before when I > was using personal web srever on win98. I appear to be serving > .htm pages fine via 127.0.0.1 and localhost, so I think I have > Apache running fine. I can;t seem to get the cf admin to run > though. It keeps downloading and opening up in cf studio. > I am thinking apache is not recongnizing the .cfm extension. > Could that be it? And if so how do I add .cfm in apache so > that it can be recongnized. CF 4.5 doesn't run with Apache 2.0.x. There's no Apache 2-compatible module with CF 4.5. For that matter, if you want to run CF 5 with Apache 2, you have to use a free, third-party module: http://home.nextron.ch/coldfusion/ As an alternative, you can get Apache 1.3.x and use that. In any case, when you do have a version of Apache and a version of CF that will work with each other, you'll have to configure Apache's httpd.conf file manually in most cases. The above link describes how that's done; there's also a document on the Macromedia support site which describes this. > Cf doesn't appear to be loading at start-up either. ie it is > not in the tray. Is it in the Startup folder? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: apache and cf
I believe that the cf module for Apache 2.0 is not compatible with CF server 4.5, and for that matter, with 5.0. There is however some gents that have written their own cf module for Apache 2.0 that is compatible with CF server 5.0. This module can be found at: http://home.nextron.ch/coldfusion/. I am not sure if they(MM) will retro-fit a mod for Apache 2.0 for the various non MX versions of CF(4.5,5.0). This was brought up in the CF-Server list last week. Hope any of this helps, John Ensign www.thebinarylab.com -Original Message- From: Jeremy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: apache and cf I am attempting to set up my workstation with apache 2.0.39, cf 4.5 on a win 2k pro box. I had no problems before when I was using personal web srever on win98. I appear to be serving .htm pages fine via 127.0.0.1 and localhost, so I think I have Apache running fine. I can;t seem to get the cf admin to run though. It keeps downloading and opening up in cf studio. I am thinking apache is not recongnizing the .cfm extension. Could that be it? And if so how do I add .cfm in apache so that it can be recongnized. Cf doesn't appear to be loading at start-up either. ie it is not in the tray. Thanks alot. Jeremy __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: apache and cf
Jeremy, Bad news, I don't think your ever going to be able to get 4.5 CF working on Apache 2.0.39 unless you have access to the source stub files. CF5 folks have a .dll out there floating around for Apache builds over 2, but .. even then, it's uncertain that Macromedia is ever going to release this (and, I doubt they will, they're on MX already). ~Todd On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Jeremy wrote: > I am attempting to set up my workstation with apache 2.0.39, cf 4.5 on a win > 2k pro box. I had no problems before when I was using personal web srever on > win98. I appear to be serving .htm pages fine via 127.0.0.1 and localhost, > so I think I have Apache running fine. I can;t seem to get the cf admin to > run though. It keeps downloading and opening up in cf studio. I am thinking > apache is not recongnizing the .cfm extension. Could that be it? And if so > how do I add .cfm in apache so that it can be recongnized. Cf doesn't appear > to be loading at start-up either. ie it is not in the tray. Thanks alot. > > Jeremy -- Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion | http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ | http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
apache and cf
I am attempting to set up my workstation with apache 2.0.39, cf 4.5 on a win 2k pro box. I had no problems before when I was using personal web srever on win98. I appear to be serving .htm pages fine via 127.0.0.1 and localhost, so I think I have Apache running fine. I can;t seem to get the cf admin to run though. It keeps downloading and opening up in cf studio. I am thinking apache is not recongnizing the .cfm extension. Could that be it? And if so how do I add .cfm in apache so that it can be recongnized. Cf doesn't appear to be loading at start-up either. ie it is not in the tray. Thanks alot. Jeremy __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
