Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-11 Thread Krist van Besien
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: OK. That makes perfect sense. At this point, my main concern is actually understanding how this works. When I was reading the docs on UseCanonicalName (

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-11 Thread Krist van Besien
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: What you need to do is check what's in the Host header, and if it doesn't match the ServerName send a redirect. RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\.foo\.com [NC] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !=

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-11 Thread André Warnier
Charles Sprickman wrote: [...] Under what conditions does Apache then get involved and alter the URL? Just redirects? I understand a common redirect is just adding a trailing slash when the user does not supply it. What are some other common cases? Who's call is it when a simple static

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-11 Thread Charles Sprickman
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Andr? Warnier wrote: Charles Sprickman wrote: [...] Under what conditions does Apache then get involved and alter the URL? Just redirects? I understand a common redirect is just adding a trailing slash when the user does not supply it. What are some other common

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-10 Thread Charles Sprickman
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Krist van Besien wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: So in short, this does work, until I get into the murky area of keeping the URL consistent in the browser.  For example, let's take www.foo.com. I always want visitors to see

[us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-09 Thread Charles Sprickman
Hello all, I've got port-based virtual hosting working, but am having some difficulties with enforcing the creation of proper self-referential URLs. In short, I'm using a scheme in one place (and hopefully others) where I have multiple virtual private servers that only have one public IP.

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-09 Thread Eric Covener
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: Hello all, I've got port-based virtual hosting working, but am having some Does tinkering with UseCanonicalPhysicalPort help? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-09 Thread Charles Sprickman
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Eric Covener wrote: On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: Hello all, I've got port-based virtual hosting working, but am having some Does tinkering with UseCanonicalPhysicalPort help? Unless I'm misreading that part of the doc, I would

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-09 Thread J. Greenlees
Charles Sprickman wrote: Hello all, ~snip~ So in short, this does work, until I get into the murky area of keeping the URL consistent in the browser. For example, let's take www.foo.com. I always want visitors to see www.foo.com in the browser URL field. If I set UseCanonicalName On in

Re: [us...@httpd] Port-based vhosts

2009-03-09 Thread Krist van Besien
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Charles Sprickman sp...@bway.net wrote: So in short, this does work, until I get into the murky area of keeping the URL consistent in the browser.  For example, let's take www.foo.com. I always want visitors to see www.foo.com in the browser URL field.  If I