On September 22, 2004 07:44 am, Johann Botha wrote:
> >
> > php_admin_flag engine off
> >
>
> hmm.. thats where I stopped investigating this option,
> I dont want to be editing config files.
Neither do I but in my case I anticipate 95% of the hosts being identical, if
I have to
On September 22, 2004 10:10 am, Raúl Alexis Betancort Santana wrote:
> I wonder how running a script inside a mod_rewrite rule is better that
> defining a new NameVirtualHost directive, moreover taking into account that
It's better (IMO) because I do not have to configure apache. My admin
inter
El Miércoles 22 Septiembre 2004 12:12, Fraser Campbell escribió:
> On September 22, 2004 03:04 am, Johann Botha wrote:
> > running a script from mod_rewrite was not reliable, sometimes it just did
> > not work... restart apache and it worked again. maybe it was just the
> > version I used.
>
> Hmm,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Fraser >@2004.09.22_13:12:19_GMT+0200
> > 2) I wanted to enable / disable things like PHPengine for the virtual
> > ? ?host based on LDAP settings.
>
> You could do it in the script, if file extension is .php th
On September 22, 2004 03:04 am, Johann Botha wrote:
> running a script from mod_rewrite was not reliable, sometimes it just did
> not work... restart apache and it worked again. maybe it was just the
> version I used.
Hmm, I don't like the sounds of that. Hopefully it was just the version you
u
Hi Fraser >@2004.09.22_03:13:17_GMT+0200
> I finally got around to trying out mod_rewrite and it looks like things will
> work exactly as I'd hoped.
> Obviously under this scheme all hostnames get treated the same, you would have
> to override the defaults in
ng up a perl process
for every single request.
Obviously under this scheme all hostnames get treated the same, you would have
to override the defaults in some cases (SSL sites for example) but that can
be done by adding normal rules in or containers.
On September 5, 2004 09:06 pm, Fraser Camp
If your clients get domains, buy service by domain, dont care about it
at all, go for it.
You can chroot ftp/dav..etc, then they wont even know it.
El mar, 16-09-2003 a las 13:34, Rod Rodolico escribió:
> Long time ago, I ran a dozen domains or so off one IP. Then, did a colo with a lot
> of IP
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:34 AM, Rod Rodolico wrote:
Long time ago, I ran a dozen domains or so off one IP. Then, did a
colo with a lot of IP's and
have each domain running on its own.
Now I have a chance to decrease my colo costs significantly, but only
8 IP's come with the
service
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 19:34, Rod Rodolico wrote:
> I can not think of any drawbacks to doing it. I only offer web, ftp and
> mail service (apache, proftp and exim). The only thing I can think of is
> that reverse dns will not work correctly, but I see no reason that should
> impact these ser
Long time ago, I ran a dozen domains or so off one IP. Then, did a colo with a lot of
IP's and
have each domain running on its own.
Now I have a chance to decrease my colo costs significantly, but only 8 IP's come with
the
service (I can get more, but it gets more expensive).
I can not think of
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:42:03PM +0100, Darren Clark wrote:
> To lock down php scripts running in a virtual host you can use the
> open_basedir directive in the apache conf. This will ensure that no
> scripts running in the directory can read files outside of the specified
> directory. e.g
>
> p
, 2003 at 09:14:15AM -0600, Vector wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fraser Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:36 AM
> Subject: Privacy in virtual hosting environment
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Fraser Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:36 AM
Subject: Privacy in virtual hosting environment
> Hi,
>
> Since I'm currently setting up my first shared hosting environment in a
few
> years I'
Hi,
Since I'm currently setting up my first shared hosting environment in a few
years I'm wondering how to adequately address privacy issues.
I plan to provide python (with and without mod_python), perl (perhaps just
CGI) as well as PHP support. Is there any way to prevent people from
sourcin
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 05:17:26PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:23, Alexander Reelsen wrote:
> > is smtp auth at the ldap server.
> >
> > Can anyone tell whether this is actually possible with cram-md5 and not
> > only plain/login?
> If you want aut
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:23, Alexander Reelsen wrote:
> is smtp auth at the ldap server.
>
> Can anyone tell whether this is actually possible with cram-md5 and not
> only plain/login?
If you want authenticated smtp traffic, you probably should use
encrypted smtp traffic too. And then, I don't r
de/bits/ispman_woody.html/
>
> Quite introductory though
>
> > Don't forget to make a report about what solution you choose and why ;-)
>
> No problem.. might last a bit ;)
Debian people have a lot of patience :-)
> > A virtual hosting task with all necessary packages wi
ain/login?
> Here, help on installing Ispman on woody:
> http://gabriel.orangebits.de/de/bits/ispman_woody.html/
Quite introductory though
> Don't forget to make a report about what solution you choose and why ;-)
No problem.. might last a bit ;)
> A virtual hosting task with al
tml/
Don't forget to make a report about what solution you choose and why ;-)
> Oh, and btw, there isn't any complete virtual hosting solution in debian,
> maybe it's time to change that. Building such a system by just installing
> one package might be very tempting to s
Hi,
cpanel & confixxx - paid
www.ispman.org - free
Regards,
BIVOL
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Reelsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:08 AM
Subject: Virtual hosting solutions
> Hi folks
>
Hello List,
> I'm currently in the need of a complete virtual hosting solution.
Confixx could do the Job. The only Service it does not have is imap.
The mailuser it creates don't have a shell, so they have no space to store
the folders.
> I'm completely independent in the
Hi folks
I'm currently in the need of a complete virtual hosting solution. I'm
seeking something with as few administration overhead as possible (I'm
lazy and this is going to be a private service, nothing commercial, I
don't get paid, so we need to reduce work ;) and as fea
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:26, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 11:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49, Michal Novotny wrote:
> > > There is a little problem with about 1500 domains/clients.
> > > How can I set it up (with perl/php/ssi/ssl/cgi/ftp/mysql etc.) ?
> >
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 11:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49, Michal Novotny wrote:
>
> > There is a little problem with about 1500 domains/clients.
> > How can I set it up (with perl/php/ssi/ssl/cgi/ftp/mysql etc.) ?
> > I think it have to be all in the chrooted directory, so w
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: virtual hosting
Hello!
It is possible to make virtual web hosting (apache) in chroot jail?
There is a little problem with about 1500 domains/clients.
How can I set it up (with perl/php/ssi/ssl/cgi/ftp/mysql etc.) ?
I think it have to be all in the chrooted
ronments for different Apache configurations, so you have the PHP3
chroot, the PHP4 chroot, etc. Then have all of these support all hosts
through bulk virtual hosting.
Then if a customer wants PHP3 instead of PHP4 you can just change their DNS
to point to a different IP.
--
If you send email to me or
Hmm, I think this doesn't work for me, I forgot that there will be too
much memory and strong cpu needed :-( So, I'll need to find other way
to more secure my box. I'll take a look at the grsecurity...
Thanks for now, I'll be back ;)
Regards
Michal Novotny
26. bøezna 2002 17:08:41, Russell Cok
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:34, Julien.Soula wrote:
> Russell Coker writes:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49, Michal Novotny wrote:
> >[.]
> >
> > > apache/perl/mysql/libs for each domain? or could it be symlinked?
> >
> > Symlinks do not work across chroot jails by definition
Russell Coker writes:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49, Michal Novotny wrote:
> [.]
> > apache/perl/mysql/libs for each domain? or could it be symlinked?
>
> Symlinks do not work across chroot jails by definition.
Whereas <> should work !!!
-- Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:49, Michal Novotny wrote:
> It is possible to make virtual web hosting (apache) in chroot jail?
Yes. Just install complete copies of Debian in the chroot jails.
> There is a little problem with about 1500 domains/clients.
> How can I set it up (with perl/php/ssi/ssl/cgi/f
Hello!
It is possible to make virtual web hosting (apache) in chroot jail?
There is a little problem with about 1500 domains/clients.
How can I set it up (with perl/php/ssi/ssl/cgi/ftp/mysql etc.) ?
I think it have to be all in the chrooted directory, so will it be
apache/perl/mysql/libs for each
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 11:21:17AM -0500,
Richard A Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> You have FEATURE(`allmasquerade') Correct?
You were right...
> Try FEATURE(`limited_masquerade') and add *ONLY* the hosts you to
> masquerade (localhost, etc) to class {M}
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 07:12:42PM -0500,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> What else do you have in your .mc ? Masquerading options maybe?
Ooops, here it is (domain names changed). Can I have both masquerading
and virtusertable or should I tr
SB> If I send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when the main domain is
SB> dot.bar and I have in the virtusertable:
SB> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bortzmeyer
SB> the mail is received with a header:
SB> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SB> which is not what the customer wants.
What else do you hav
I'm clearly rusty in sendmail (I now use Postfix but a customer wants to keep
sendmail) and I have a small but annoying problem with virtual hosting. I have
implemented:
http://www.sendmail.org/virtual-hosting.html
with a M4 configuration file as instructed above. It works fine except
the steps you do, not just how to do it.
> 3) Im looking for best deamons in your opinions to use (exim/cyrus
>combo is what I use at work, but its a 1 domain environment).
As others already said, there is no 'Host: ' like in HTTP/1.x so users
have to put their entire
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:21:22AM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> their logins. but i dont want to use the linux auth for pop/imap/mta. Im
> expecting to have several hundred email addresses with only a few (10-20)
> for ssh. Id rather not fill my passwd file with junk. Is this possible? =)
If
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:21:22AM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> their logins. but i dont want to use the linux auth for pop/imap/mta. Im
> expecting to have several hundred email addresses with only a few (10-20)
> for ssh. Id rather not fill my passwd file with junk. Is this possible? =)
I
Thanks everyone for the input, was very helpful...
That was my first post, and im very impressed ;)... Thanks guys for all the
tips.
-Matt
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:07, Jeremy Lunn wrote:
> > should be treated as seperate accounts. AND the account logins should
> > BOTH be just 'webmaster', and the pop server should be able to figure out
> > which user it is by the server-name they are using ie 'mail.client1.com'
> > or
>
> That is not
Thanks everyone for the input, was very helpful...
That was my first post, and im very impressed ;)... Thanks guys for all the
tips.
-Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Walkup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:21 AM
Subject: RE: Virtual Hosting for Email
> Thanks for the replies Jeremy...
>
> Well thats what I was looking for, and I figured that about the POP3 (kind
>
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:07, Jeremy Lunn wrote:
> > should be treated as seperate accounts. AND the account logins should
> > BOTH be just 'webmaster', and the pop server should be able to figure out
> > which user it is by the server-name they are using ie 'mail.client1.com'
> > or
>
> That is not
> 1) Im wondering if this is possible, or what is the next-best solution.
No. nor POP nor IMAP support HTTP 'Host: ' like constructions
Next best thing: let your users login as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
Frank
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Walkup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 5:21 AM
Subject: RE: Virtual Hosting for Email
> Thanks for the replies Jeremy...
>
> Well thats what I was looking for, and I figured that a
> 1) Im wondering if this is possible, or what is the next-best solution.
No. nor POP nor IMAP support HTTP 'Host: ' like constructions
Next best thing: let your users login as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
Frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:01:08PM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> should be treated as seperate accounts. AND the account logins should BOTH
> be just 'webmaster', and the pop server should be able to figure out which
> user it is by the server-nam
--disabled-password and
authenticate with a htpasswd file).
Thanks again for any more insight,
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Lunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 2:07 AM
To: Matthew Walkup
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Virtual Hosting for
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:01:08PM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> a small client base now, so I think it should be alright). So I need a
> smtp/pop package that is light-weight, and doesnt have much overhead. The
Postfix is a great MTA (Mail Transfer Agent). I don't know hich pop
package would
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:01:08PM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> should be treated as seperate accounts. AND the account logins should BOTH
> be just 'webmaster', and the pop server should be able to figure out which
> user it is by the server-na
--disabled-password and
authenticate with a htpasswd file).
Thanks again for any more insight,
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Lunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 2:07 AM
To: Matthew Walkup
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virtual Hosting for Email
On
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 11:01:08PM -0800, Matthew Walkup wrote:
> a small client base now, so I think it should be alright). So I need a
> smtp/pop package that is light-weight, and doesnt have much overhead. The
Postfix is a great MTA (Mail Transfer Agent). I don't know hich pop
package would
Hello,
I appologize in advanced, this may seem easy to most of you =).
In the coming weeks, my small hosting company will be moving from our
out-sourced server to our own and there is only one issue that I have yet to
figure out a solution to.
We have 1 ip, 1 server (with all services running on
Hello,
I appologize in advanced, this may seem easy to most of you =).
In the coming weeks, my small hosting company will be moving from our
out-sourced server to our own and there is only one issue that I have yet to
figure out a solution to.
We have 1 ip, 1 server (with all services running o
Gavin Hamill wrote:
> This is my biggest problem and a significant security hole :/
>
> I have a directory /www containing all the vhosting directories, named
> domain.com, etc.
>
> the entire directory tree is owned by a user called virtual, and
> everyone has CGI, PHP and SSI access.
>
> In t
Gavin Hamill wrote:
> This is my biggest problem and a significant security hole :/
>
> I have a directory /www containing all the vhosting directories, named
> domain.com, etc.
>
> the entire directory tree is owned by a user called virtual, and
> everyone has CGI, PHP and SSI access.
>
> In
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 06:44:02PM -0500, Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
>
> MpP> For simple masshosting I still suggest mod_vhost.
>
> Which brings me back to my original question. For simple masshosting, I
> would agree. But what about a system where some vhosts have CGI or SSI
> access for exam
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 06:44:02PM -0500, Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
>
> MpP> For simple masshosting I still suggest mod_vhost.
>
> Which brings me back to my original question. For simple masshosting, I
> would agree. But what about a system where some vhosts have CGI or SSI
> access for exa
OK, I'll write a patch... you'' get it within an hour or so..
regards,
--
Martin 'pisi' Paljak / freelancer consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / pisi.pisitek.com
www.pisitek.com
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> As of 1.3.22 it reads everything .file and file~ :( Easy to fix but ain
As of 1.3.22 it reads everything .file and file~ :( Easy to fix but aint
got no time nor interest.
--
Martin 'pisi' Paljak / freelancer consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / pisi.pisitek.com
www.pisitek.com
On 24 Nov 2001, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Frank" == Frank Louwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
OK, I'll write a patch... you'' get it within an hour or so..
regards,
--
Martin 'pisi' Paljak / freelancer consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / pisi.pisitek.com
www.pisitek.com
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> As of 1.3.22 it reads everything .file and file~ :( Easy to fix but ai
As of 1.3.22 it reads everything .file and file~ :( Easy to fix but aint
got no time nor interest.
--
Martin 'pisi' Paljak / freelancer consultant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / pisi.pisitek.com
www.pisitek.com
On 24 Nov 2001, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Frank" == Frank Louwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Frank" == Frank Louwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
>> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
>> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
Hey guys,
What are people doing for virtual hosting? I'm trying to figure what
would be best for me.
Would running a vhost module be a good way of doing things? My only
problem with this is I'd have to parse the single log file for each
host. Not a huge deal, bu
Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
files in those dirs as config files. With some maintenance scripts it
allows very e
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
> files
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry,
> and load all fil
> "Frank" == Frank Louwers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
>> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
>> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
> files
Hey Martin,
Saturday, November 24, 2001, 5:30:41 PM, you wrote:
MpP> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
MpP> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
MpP> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
Mp
Hey Martin,
Saturday, November 24, 2001, 5:30:41 PM, you wrote:
MpP> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
MpP> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
MpP> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
M
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:30:41AM +0200, Martin 'pisi' Paljak wrote:
> Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
> it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
> include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry,
> and load all file
Actually there is a very nice and nifty feature in apache 1.3.19+ (or was
it 20+) that allows an include filename to be a directory what will
include all directories and subdirs of the named direcotry, and load all
files in those dirs as config files. With some maintenance scripts it
allows very ea
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 04:29:06PM -0500, Kevin J. Menard, Jr. wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> And I was thinking just have a separate vhost.conf file and modifying
> that, then restarting apache with graceful.
This is exactly what I do, with the same filename vhost.conf and
everything =)
In fact
Hey guys,
What are people doing for virtual hosting? I'm trying to figure what
would be best for me.
Would running a vhost module be a good way of doing things? My only
problem with this is I'd have to parse the single log file for each
host. Not a huge deal, bu
Hey Simon,
Thursday, July 26, 2001, 6:10:11 PM, you wrote:
>> > You can't do name based virtual hosting with ftp, as the protocol
>> > doesn't use domain names.
>> >
>> > You will need to do IP based virtual hosting and use IP aliasing.
>>
> > You can't do name based virtual hosting with ftp, as the protocol
> > doesn't use domain names.
> >
> > You will need to do IP based virtual hosting and use IP aliasing.
>
> How hard would it be to implement a thing in say ProFTPd for example,
>
hello,
as sombody allready pointed name based virtual hosts are not under the ftp protocol
and for instance you have to chroot every user/domain on its own directory.
alternatively maybe this package could help you:
proftpd-ldap
Versatile, virtual-hosting FTP daemon (with LDAP
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 07:44:22PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
>
> Now if you are talking about real virtual hosting where you could have
> multiple users with the same name, then you'd need to have separate
> authentication (passwd) files for each virtual host -- and -- you&#
sername, ftpd will point that user to his own ftp
account.
Now if you are talking about real virtual hosting where you could have
multiple users with the same name, then you'd need to have separate
authentication (passwd) files for each virtual host -- and -- you'd need
to decide on a UID (a
Original message:
> > How do you use Proftpd to serve more then one domain?
> > Name based Virtual Hosting seems to work only for
> > Apache, because of the protocol (HTTP 1.1).
> >
> > Is the only way to use IP-Aliasing?
> > (Have all IP's to be officia
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:36:07AM +1000, David Stanaway wrote:
> On Thursday, July 26, 2001, at 10:17 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
>
> You can't do name based virtual hosting with ftp, as the protocol
> doesn't use domain names.
>
> You will need to do IP base
On Thursday, July 26, 2001, at 10:17 AM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
Hello *,
I have a question:
How do you use Proftpd to serve more then one domain?
Name based Virtual Hosting seems to work only for
Apache, because of the protocol (HTTP 1.1).
You can't do name based virtual hosting wit
The FTP protocal doesn't handle name based virtual hosting. The only way
to do it is by adding more ips the ftp box. Its a complete pain, but the
only way.
eg isp2.com 10.10.1.1
isp3.com 10.10.1.2
Stuff goes here
Stuff goes here
Hope that helps
> Hello *,
>
> I h
> I have a question:
Many do.
> How do you use Proftpd to serve more then one domain?
> Name based Virtual Hosting seems to work only for
> Apache, because of the protocol (HTTP 1.1).
Setup each domain as a user on the system, eg /home/user. (keep the name
simple) Point each Ap
Hello *,
I have a question:
How do you use Proftpd to serve more then one domain?
Name based Virtual Hosting seems to work only for
Apache, because of the protocol (HTTP 1.1).
Is the only way to use IP-Aliasing?
(Have all IP's to be official?)
I don't want to use Port-Based Virtu
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:58, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > I would be interested in the motivations and arguments anyone on the
> > list has to contradict my opinion. I'm sure it looks like I'm trying
> > to start a flame war, but I just cannot understand why anyone would
> > wish to log to a database.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 01:25:50PM -0400, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> Do you find it difficult to manage your text file database when you
> have programs on different machines needing access to the data?
nope, not at all.
most of the servers i build are fairly self-contained. i don't need to
query
d as products like
Zeus and thttpd seem to be superior to Apache in that arena, and probably
will continue to be.
- jsw
-Original Message-
From: Craig Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:05 PM
To: Haim Dimermanas
Cc: Russell Coker; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:00:57AM -0500, Haim Dimermanas wrote:
> > any script i need to write can just open the virtual-hosts.conf file
> > and parse it (it's a single line, colon-delimited format) to find
> > out everything it needs to know about every virtual host.
>
> I used to do it that wa
> The problem with that comes when you have multiple web server machines.
>
> I set things up with logging to a single file. Then for multiple machines
> it's easy to use ssh to get the logs from each machine and merge them into a
> single log file.
Again, take a look at mod_spread for Apache
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:00, Haim Dimermanas wrote:
> My research showed that web hosting customers don't look at their stats
> every day. Even if they did, your stats are generated daily. Having the
> logs in a database allows you to generate the stats on the fly. Now with a
> simple caching syste
> > Why not use vhost_alias_module in Apache and something like the
> > following: VirtualDocumentRoot /home/www/%-1/%-2/%-3/%-4+
>
> because that's not as flexible as my system. it's fine if you want
> all your vhosts exactly the same, but it doesn't allow for individual
> variation.
Absolute
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 01:20:16PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> Why not use vhost_alias_module in Apache and something like the
> following: VirtualDocumentRoot /home/www/%-1/%-2/%-3/%-4+
because that's not as flexible as my system. it's fine if you want
all your vhosts exactly the same, but it
> > Now imagine that the guy wants his website accessible via
> > http://example.com as well. The URL only has 2 parts. Apache will look for
> > the files in /home/www/com/example/_/_/(notice the 2 "_" this time) when
> > example.com is requested.
> >
> > Any solution?
>
> Enable sym-links in Apa
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 01:20:16PM +0200, Russell Coker wrote:
> Why not use vhost_alias_module in Apache and something like the
> following: VirtualDocumentRoot /home/www/%-1/%-2/%-3/%-4+
because that's not as flexible as my system. it's fine if you want
all your vhosts exactly the same, but it
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:39, Haim Dimermanas wrote:
> > Why not use vhost_alias_module in Apache and something like the
> > following: VirtualDocumentRoot /home/www/%-1/%-2/%-3/%-4+
>
> I have one large problem with this solution and I have been working on it
> for days without being able to solve it
> > Now imagine that the guy wants his website accessible via
> > http://example.com as well. The URL only has 2 parts. Apache will look for
> > the files in /home/www/com/example/_/_/(notice the 2 "_" this time) when
> > example.com is requested.
> >
> > Any solution?
>
> Enable sym-links in Ap
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:39, Haim Dimermanas wrote:
> > Why not use vhost_alias_module in Apache and something like the
> > following: VirtualDocumentRoot /home/www/%-1/%-2/%-3/%-4+
>
> I have one large problem with this solution and I have been working on it
> for days without being able to solve i
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
