Re: Apache-SSL giving me odd results

From: Ludek (ngposter_at_email.cz)
Date: 12/30/04

  • Next message: rloef_at_interfold.com: "Televideo dumb terminal with 4.10?" 
    Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:09:29 +0100

    The Doctor wrote:
    >
    > In article <41D3058B.C17C3C6@amit.cz>, Ludek <ngposter@email.cz> wrote:
    > >The Doctor wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Problem, I have 2 site that are suppose to be on port 80 and
    > >> they are going to the FreeBSD Installed page instead.
    > >...
    > >> http://www.dynamicsi.com which should go to http://www.dynamicsi.com/index.htm
    > >>
    > >> and
    > >>
    > >> http://www.winfash.com which should go to http://www.winfash.com/index.htm
    > >...
    > >> This is what I have in the httpsd.conf file:
    > >>
    > >> <VirtualHost 216.95.238.209:80>
    > >...
    > >> ServerName dynamicsi.com
    > >!!!
    > >...
    > >> <VirtualHost 216.95.238.211:80>
    > >...
    > >> ServerName winfash.com
    > >!!!
    > >...
    > >> </VirtualHost>
    > >> #
    > >>
    > >> What cann I not get dymanicsi or winfash to behave themselves?
    > >
    > >That's because neither www.dynamicsi.com nor www.winfash.com match any
    > >of the entries above.
    > >ServerNames in the VirtualHost directives which you probably expect to
    > >match the names are dynamicsi.com and winfash.com, respectively, and no
    > >ServerAlias is set.
    > >Correct the ServerNames and/or add desired ServerAliases, if any, and it
    > >should work.
    > >
    > >> In between the entry for cottage-computers.com is running correctly.
    > >
    > >Yes but I suppose that www.cottage-computers.com doesn't work for the
    > >same reason.
    > >
    > >Ludek
    >
    > When I tested out based on IP, I was getting the same result.

    Oops, until now it hasn't occur to me that you may be trying to
    configure IP-based virtual hosting as opposed to name-based :-)
    If so, make sure you _don't_ have NameVirtualServer directives for the
    two IPs in your config file.

    Other thing that I've just spotted:
    One difference I see between the working VirtualHost and the two others
    is that the working one doesn't include the "Port 80" directive. Why
    don't you get rid of the directives in the problematic VirtualHosts?
    They seem completely redundant to me, seing as the port 80 is already
    specified in the VirtualHost directives. The Port directives shouldn't
    break anything, IMO, but who knows...
    Correction: I've just checked the apache docs for the Port directive and
    "virtual host" _isn't_ listed in the context where the directive can be
    used. So the directives _are_ likely to break things (such as make the
    virtual host directives that contain them ignored completely).

    Ludek

  • Next message: rloef_at_interfold.com: "Televideo dumb terminal with 4.10?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Apache/Redhat Simple AuthType Basic not working :( help please
      ... There are several virtualhost entries and the ... Virtual hosts directives) in a directive. ... I've also stopped and restarted my browser and deleted temp ... was skipping future auth. ...
      (RedHat)
    • Re: Multiple NameVirtualHost ?
      ... so I added another line with NameVirtualHost 192.168.0.1 and changed the ... directives to be <VirtualHost *> instead of any particular IP-address ... What directives am I missing ?!? ...
      (comp.os.linux.setup)