[buug] two urls one ip...with ssl

[John de la Garza]

On Sep 3, 2004, at 2:20 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:

> John de la Garza wrote:
>>
>> actually they are know as well known ports for those services
>>
>> I don't know what you experience is with this, so forgive me if I over
>> simplify.
>
> Oh, condescending mode. Goodie.
>
> You see there are these things called URLs which Uniformly Locate
> Resouces.  One of the fields they contain is the port on the server.
> Inside web pages we have tags called anchors which create links using
> URLs.  So you could have links on your main example.com page as 
> follows:
>
> <a href="http://example.com:1080/main_page">Click here for my very
> important site</a>
>
> or:
>
> <a href="https://example.com:1234/secure_site">Click here to enter my
> secure area!</a>
>
> The port is usually selected from the list of well-known ports out of
> custom but there is no requirement for this whatsoever.
>
>> When you put http in a browser it defaults to port 80
>>
>> https goes to 443
>>
>> if you run a website and want the user to put the domain name alone as
>> the url
>> you must run your http external listening things on port 80
>> and https on 443
>
> Yes, that is true of your initial URL.  However, there's nothing that
> says you cannot have an arbitrarily complex link on your main pages for
> the "click here to add to shopping cart" or "click here to check-out
> securely."  Banks and check-out scripts do this all the time, and users
> are perfectly used to it.  Go do some online banking and come back and
> let me know if /anything/ but the initial home site url is simple and
> easy to comprehend by a human.
>
>> I didn't mean to say management requires it...
>>
>> Everyone expects it it is default behavior.  I have not decided this.
>
> You have also not read RFC1738 recently, apparently.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Buug mailing list
> Buug at weak.org
> http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug