Jim Klimov writes:
> Just to clarify: using a different port *is* possible since forever, with
> `LISTEN host port` (as two arguments to the directive); the question was if
> having a way to spell it as one argument as `LISTEN host:port` would solve
> some shortcomings/ease adoption more than
Thanks for sharing your take on this. (Sorry about likely mixing historic
standards, was not in position to cross-check while posting)
Just to clarify: using a different port *is* possible since forever, with
`LISTEN host port` (as two arguments to the directive); the question was if
having a way
Jim Klimov via Nut-upsdev writes:
> A recent discussion in the issue tracker brought up the idea to allow the
> `LISTEN` keyword to also accept a single "host:port" token (e.g. if there
> is only one argument, with at least one colon, and the last colon is
> followed only by numbers, split it
Cheers all,
A recent discussion in the issue tracker brought up the idea to allow the
`LISTEN` keyword to also accept a single "host:port" token (e.g. if there
is only one argument, with at least one colon, and the last colon is
followed only by numbers, split it into host and port) :
