Bennett Todd (bet@rahul.net) wrote:
2000-08-30-04:01:32 Peter van Dijk:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 10:43:08PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
ftp can't be name-virtual-hosted. It is also such a wretched protocol that it urgently needs to be retired in all settings for all purposes.
Theoretically, you could do the same with ftp as with pop3 - use usernames like 'user@domain.com'.
That doesn't help the perceived need among folks who insist on supporting ftp; if they are selling a website www.naughtybits.dom then they want to have a related ftp server ftp.naughtybits.dom. As there's no way for the ftp server to tell which hostname the client used to reach the IP addr, name virtual hosting doesn't make this possible.
The big difference between pop (where logging in with name@example.dom works fine for name virtual hosting) and ftp is that pop is a private service, where some folks like to use ftp as a public service without authentication.
I'd still put little weight on folks advocating and encouraging the use ftp, but the same point can [sadly] be made much more effectively with https. IP virtual hosts are where it's at for the time being.
And lets not forget traffic accounting as well. ;-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Rosson ... and a UNIX user said ... The InSaNe One rm -rf * insane@oneinsane.net and all was /dev/null and *void() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Guns don't kill people, loony professors kill people.