Virtual Host or Not?

[itslate]

I am setting up a RedHat system.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only access to this system will be VIA the web.&nbsp;&nbsp;There will be no telnet or FTP access.&nbsp;&nbsp;The system will have 10 - 20 users that need individual Secure Web Pages (SSL).&nbsp;&nbsp;Do I really need to set up a virtual host or could I just run them all from one domain name, with different directories (i.e.&nbsp;&nbsp;<A HREF="

http://www.mydomain.com/user1"

TARGET="_new">

http://www.mydomain.com/user1</A>,

and so on).&nbsp;&nbsp;THey don't care what their domain names are, and as I said, the only access is VIA apache. The reasoning behind this, is that I only have one IP available, and apache can't do SSL with name based virtual hosts.<br>opinions greatly appreciated... thanks.

 

[steam]

That's not correct. I'm using ssl with name-based hosts. Using a different port on the base IP (443).
also you could let them work with your own server certificate by setting a few &quot;Alias&quot; in your secure virtual host.

 

[xxxx]

Hi to All,

But in any case you shouldn't have any problem letting Apache direct your users in subdirectories of your domain. It should work fine!

Bye!