Technically, it all work fine. I think Joshua put his finger on the
fatal flaw -- corporate firewalls that block access to 'suspicious'
ports. Not a problem for most home users, but a serious problem for
people working behind paranoid/appropriately concerned corporate
firewalls...
Oh well
I see.
Thanks,
~Jet
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua
Slive
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:01 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] using non-standard SSL ports
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Wilda, Jet
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Wilda, Jet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the bigger issue is that you certificate will be for 1 FQDN i.e.
> sample.com and hitting with any other FQDN will pop up a window saying
> the certificate and servername don't match.
No, he can supply a different c
Slive
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:16 PM
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] using non-standard SSL ports
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, John Almberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I run a web server with a bunch of websites, all of which need an SSL
> conne
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, John Almberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I run a web server with a bunch of websites, all of which need an SSL
> connection. Instead of buying a big block of new IP addresses, I'm
> thinking of running the SSL virtual hosts on non-standard ports, like
> 444, 44
I run a web server with a bunch of websites, all of which need an SSL
connection. Instead of buying a big block of new IP addresses, I'm
thinking of running the SSL virtual hosts on non-standard ports, like
444, 445, etc. (just an example... I'd probably use a higher set of
numbers.)
Sinc
