Hi,

Why is it a good idea beside search-engine placement, to have my own ip?

Thanks guys!

The ability to setup Anon FTP and have a SSL cert.

I don't think it even matters for search engine placement, so unless you need a secure cert., want to run anon FTP, or a subdomain redirect service (or just use these types of scripts), then you really don't need it.

Actually on Windows NT there is no need for an IP to have an SSL cert. Just set it on a different port thats all.

Regards,

Asher.

Also to add to this, with proftpd there is no need to have an IP for additional FTP accounts nor with Anonymous FTP

Yeap proftpd is quite good. There's also serv-u ftp.

Daniel -

That's news to me. Last I knew, the FTP protocol doesn't have anything like the HTTP Host: header to specify what domain the client is trying to connect to.

How do you handle anonymous FTP without a dedicated IP?

Although the ftp protocol iteself doesnt support host headers but the software behind the server (winsock usually) can find out which hostname the client is using to connect with. So ipless ftp domains are possible.

Actually not many ftp servers support this but i am in the process of creating one for my hosting clients.

Regards,

Asher.

I think it's more professional to have your own IP.

Originally posted by Domenico
I think it's more professional to have your own IP.
How so? What does having your own IP have to do with professionalism?

haha, what difference does an IP make? An IP doesnt distinguish between professional and unprofessional

I think it's more professional to have your own IP.

This statement doesn't make sense to me. I might agree if there were some benefits to having a dedicated IP, and if those benefits in turn increased your company's professionalism.....

But if there are no benefits (and it seems there aren't any from reading above), then I fail to see how a dedicated IP address makes you more professional.

Unless you think the putting yor IP address in your media brings you additional benefit:

"Visit our website today at either www.mycompany.com or 123.456.789.012"

No offense intended, but I'm not sure I agree with your statement. :)

Sorry Domenico, I'm siding with them. I have a slew of domains, some with dedicated IPs and many without, and if you'd like, I'll post them and you tell me which ones are the 'more professional' ones :D

I use this trick for the people who like bottled water. They claim you can taste the difference. I told my wife to drink 3 out of the six bottles and then I'd fill up the three with tap water and mix them up in the ol' icebox and if she can tell me which are the three 'pure' ones and which are the 'tainted' ones, I'd buy her water. She got around me by buying one of those Britta water filter pitchers!

All of this is in fun, please don't take offense.

Hello all-

If IP addresses are not worth anything, why do we still use them? This is an honest question. Just want to know. I told Jonah in SitePoint that they were good for:

1) Working on a website when dns changes have not been made
2) AnonFTP
3) SSL

If I was wrong, I want to know.

Yes, I know there are other ways of reaching a website when the dns changes have not been made. I just think the IP way is the best. Again, if I am wrong, I want to know. Trust me, this is sarcasm free.

Now I hear that AnonFTP and SSL do not need it.

I am fine with the idea of not assigning IPs, but as you may see in SP, I don't believe it should be looked upon as being irresponsible if you do assign IPs to all your customers, just a different way.

Again, let me re-ask my question. I am looking for honest responses, not an arguement. If they are useless, why am I paying to supply my customers with them?

-Lamar

#1 reason: they want them.

For each SSL Cert. you do need an IP, so this is one of the real uses for them (if not the only true needed use).

I told Jonah in SitePoint that they were good for:

Erh . . .? What do you mean?

I personally think having IP based domains is the only way to go. I have a friend that worked at Infoseek up until a year ago and he told me that Infoseek would only spider sites that have their own IP address assigned to them. Things may have changed from a year ago but hearing that is enough for me. Not to mention if there is a DNS problem the only way to access the server is through an IP.

I keep hearing there is a shortage of IP's, not my problem, if I'm paying for hosting I should be able to utilize all the benefits including an IP address.

There's a shortage of phone numbers too, but I wouldnt tolerate a phone number with an extension.

Hello Jonah,

Ummm. Heh, I made a mistake. Someone asked the same exact question at almost the same time in SitePoint. It was someone else I answered. Sorry about that!:eek:

-Lamar

Originally posted by Lamar
Hello Jonah,

Ummm. Heh, I made a mistake. Someone asked the same exact question at almost the same time in SitePoint. It was someone else I answered. Sorry about that!:eek:

-Lamar

;) That's okay, I was just confused.

Originally posted by ^Kyo
Actually on Windows NT there is no need for an IP to have an SSL cert. Just set it on a different port thats all.

Ok, but then what happens to all the potential users who are behind a corporate proxy not allowing ports other than 80 and 443..?

No matter what you say I think it's more professional for many reasons besides the cosmetic one.
I'm sure many of you will say graphics don't matter also and prefer to use TEXT only to sell their stuff or have the most UGLY site in existence. Isn't this a matter off taste also?

So tell me wich of you are running their hosting business from a name based only site? I thought so... :D

I think it all depends for what you are using a site for and who/what your target audience is and when a client wants his own IP who am I to argue with him about it.

Originally posted by Lamar
Again, let me re-ask my question. I am looking for honest responses, not an arguement. If they are useless, why am I paying to supply my customers with them?

-Lamar

Originally posted by Chicken
#1 reason: they want them.

Really, it comes down to this. A name-based site is no less professional than an IP-based site and I truly hope that people aren't under the misconception that for some reason, this is the case.

With an IP based site, a domain is pointed to an IP and the server directs the visitor to the proper place (the site's files). With a name-based site, a domain is pointed to a shared IP and the server directs the visitor to the proper place (the site's files). Both require the site to be set up on the server with either the shared IP or the dedicated IP number. There is literally so little of a difference that you wouldn't know if your domain was being hosted with or without a dedicated IP, unless you tried to type in that IP directly into a browser (wouldn't work if it was name based). It mattered a long time ago, now I personally wouldn't care either way.

The people who do care are the ones that have to secure the IP addresses. ARIN is very particular about the IP addresses. If you cannot justify them, you don't get them. This is another reason why we like to use shared IP addresses.

Domenico, you would change your tune if you have to secure your own IP addresses and justify that each one that gets a static IP is in NEED of one (i.e. SSL certificate).

Also, we are sharing our IP address that we host our site on. I don't think that is unprofessional. In fact, it instills confidence with our subscribers. For our SSL, we have that hosted on a seperate IP address because this is the only instance that we need to do this with.

I agree fully with WeinBar and all others who support an IPless policy. I'm actually working on doing the same for VO, however I would like to touch on the search engine myth because thats exactly what it is a myth.

It does not matter that someone who worked for some search engine *said* it doesn't spider websites without a static IP. As far as I'm aware of no search engine has ever publically stated that if your site doesn't have an IP you won't get listed. Its no more than hear-say or a myth that people grasp to since they can't really find a technical reason for having an IP. How is someone going to tell that your not on a static IP anyhow. Sure they could visit the IP and maybe get a different site, but thats easily cureable by making the default either the default apache page or just make it a blank page all togther.

So in reality, 99.9% of all people that visit your site aren't going to care if you have an IP or not, an IP certainly does not make you more professional, just wasteful.

In some situations under win2k a fixed ip slows down site performace. I've noticed this. So only under a very very very special case do i assign a dedicated ip to any one.

Regards,

asher.

I have been told that if you are administering your own dedicated server, it is more secure if you have your main site where you perform all of your administration tasks on a different ip then your hosted sites. You can then block all of the ports on this main site from everyone except those with admin privileges (i.e. yourself).

Is their any truth to this? I believe it could be one more reason for having a separate ip.

Thanks.

I am also aware of ARIN IP policy..

Since 99% of people do not need ip based account.
But the question is why 8 out of 10 webhosting packages you see on the market offers static IP?? Nobody seem to stick with shared IP. How do they justify ARIN's policy??

Off topic: Wouldn't it be much easier to track down bandwidth usage with IP based accounts?? How do you track down ftp, telnet, email traffic with name based accounts?

Theres only 3other reasons I can think of that were not already mentioned.

1)Your attempted visitor is using a way, way out of date web browser that does not support name based sites(Yes there are a couple of browsers like this)

2)You wanna use frontpage and publish your website before your domain resolves correctly(Frontpage? :puke: )

3)Internet filters. Supose your at school and they use a filtering program. They find an adult site that a student has been visiting. The filtering software blocks by IP. They block out the IP to stop people from visiting that page. But guess what.....You share that IP. Now no one at that school can visit your page.

Originally posted by Jonah
Hi,

Why is it a good idea beside search-engine placement, to have my own ip?

Thanks guys!

Originally posted by LinuxGroup
Theres only 3other reasons I can think of that were not already mentioned.

1)Your attempted visitor is using a way, way out of date web browser that does not support name based sites(Yes there are a couple of browsers like this)

2)You wanna use frontpage and publish your website before your domain resolves correctly(Frontpage? :puke: )

3)Internet filters. Supose your at school and they use a filtering program. They find an adult site that a student has been visiting. The filtering software blocks by IP. They block out the IP to stop people from visiting that page. But guess what.....You share that IP. Now no one at that school can visit your page.



Just for clarification:

1. If they are using a web browser that is that old, then I doubt that they will be able to access and view correctly 95% of the sites out there. That should not be an issue anymore.

2. You can still upload your sites via frontpage before it propagates. Just enter the IP address/www and enter the username and password.

3. Possibly, but again, that is out of the norm. Also, you should not be sharing adult sites on sites the same IP address that non-adult sites are using. If anything, share one IP address with adult sites, or they should have their own IP address if they are using SSL to capture subscription information.

There's no way I would share an IP with other sites. If one of those sites spams a search engine the IP will get blocked, not just the domain name. Same goes for email spamming, the blackhole list blocks IP addresses, not domains.

Originally posted by Steve33
If one of those sites spams a search engine the IP will get blocked, not just the domain name. Same goes for email spamming, the blackhole list blocks IP addresses, not domains.

That doesn't sound very logic to me. Sometimes IP addresses change (server move, site move, and so on) - following your theory this IP would be "burned" and should never again be used because it is blacklisted by a search engine. Can't believe that.

Originally posted by Walter


That doesn't sound very logic to me. Sometimes IP addresses change (server move, site move, and so on) - following your theory this IP would be "burned" and should never again be used because it is blacklisted by a search engine. Can't believe that.

Believe it, this is not a 'theory', it is fact.

See http://help.altavista.com/adv_search/ast_haw_spam

"If being found via search engines is important to your business, be very careful about where you have your pages hosted. If the hosting service also hosts spammers and pornographers,
you could wind up being penalized or excluded simply because the underlying IP address for that service is the same for all the virtual domains it includes."

Any host that claims having a shared IP doesnt matter either doesnt know what they are talking about or simply is not concerned about the success of your site.

Man, Im glad I started this thread!

I thought it was a stupid question, but people really seem to differ on this topic. I guess it's best to be on the safe side and choose a host with a static ip, allthough Im really confused and in no way convinced.

To the comment about having a static ip being more professional: If having a static ip really makes a different when it comes to search-engine placement, I guess you're right. Then it's more professional to have a static ip.

On the other hand if it's useless, then it won't hurt to have one, I guess.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I stand corrected on that ONE search engine, but then again, that does not say your RANK will be effected, only your listing IF such a site were found and blacklisted soto speak, so it does not effect ranking its self but its no different than someone sending email spam from a server. Did you know that most all email from a server comes out using the servers main IP, so oh deah it might just get blocked with a few hundred clients on them even if it does have a dedicated IP. Arin and others should not be forced to mold their policies around other software that is too ignorant or stupid to modify it on a domain name basis. The filter argument is valid to a point, but did you know that most all filtering sites when they do filter a site look for repetition of words etc, even if you are on a static IP you would have to very carefully look @ all of the wordings on your site to even make it into their *ok* list anyhow.

Obviously Steve isn't wrong, though I'd say it comes down to chances. Even if you are given a dedicated IP, *that* IP may have been blocked due to previous actions by the site that was assigned to it before. They may have had a few IPs and the entire block was excluded.

I don't agree with this however:
Any host that claims having a shared IP doesnt matter either doesnt know what they are talking about or simply is not concerned about the success of your site.

As the web gets older, the ancient browser problem becomes less and less of an issue. The likelihood that an IP is excluded from something increases, yet the odds are still in your favor. Saying that you must have a dedicated IP in case a search engine blocks your IP is somewhat like saying an insurance salesman saying that you must have $30/mo. Lightning Strike insurance. Sure people do get hit with lightning, though it certainly wouldn't be necessary to have special insurance for it.

My opinion of course, and I can see the opposing opinions. Agree to disagree :D

Originally posted by Jonah
Man, Im glad I started this thread!

Me too! This is the kind of WHT thread I look forward to. I also appreciate everyone's input. I jumped on Jonah's band wagon because an issue was raised which made me think. Perhaps, in the near future, IPs will be replaced by a new system. Heh, then we can debate that system.

I still haven't changed my mind about the issue, but I am more open-minded about it. ;)

-Lamar

All I know is always make sure I have dedicated ips for my all of my domains that are in use, and some extra ones too.

Software companies across the web who's software have to do in any way to website hosting are adapting to the IP-less system. (ie: apache, ftp servers, etc). It would be rediculous to think the search engines arent adapting either. Some search engine information isnt up to date either. They block by url address. If someone spams an engine with an IP, that's what gets blocked. If the spam with a name, that's what gets blocked. They block only what has been spammed to them.

The one and only reason for needing to have your own ip is if you get a hosting account before ordering your domain, or before you change over your domain to the host's servers.....you can access your site immediatly without having to wait by using the IP.

Everything else, well everything of importance, now supports the ip-less system.

Originally posted by Webdude
...
The one and only reason for needing to have your own ip is if you get a hosting account before ordering your domain, or before you change over your domain to the host's servers.....you can access your site immediatly without having to wait by using the IP.
...

Not entirely true. We have our users access theor sites before propagation by entering in the shared IP address followed by a "/~username/" and they can see their site. They can also upload via frontpage if they so choose.

Again, the real need for an IP address is if they are using their own SSL certificate. Other than that, there is no NEED. There are certainly wants. If you want it, then there are hosts that will provide it, as we will, but the plans are usually higher for static IP addresses. But from a need point of view, the reasons are very few.

And as someone said, *that* need can easily be achieved without an IP. To me, it is less need and more want, but want is what drives the customer.

<Again, the real need for an IP address is if they are using their own SSL certificate. Other than that, there is no NEED. There are certainly wants. >

I know that it was mentioned briefly in a post on Pg. 1 of this
thread, but I think that it is worth repeating......

If you plan to operate a subdomain redirection site, it appears
that static IP's are required. If you use a Cpanel host and you
want to create "sub subdomains"; even an address as basic as
www.subdomain.domain.com, with Cpanel, in my experience, it
requires a PHP subdomain creation script, as well as a static IP,
or else, all subdomains created on Cpanel hosts will only resolve
properly without www. Cpanel on it's own, with or without a
static IP, is limited to subdomain addresses such as
http://subdomain.domain.com. If you include www before
subdomain, the address will resolve to domain.com/index, or to
an error (404) page. Unless other Cpanel hosts/clients have found a solution that I am unaware of, Cpanel users cannot
create www.subdomain addresses that resolve correctly.
It can be accomplished only with a domain that has a static IP
and a PHP redirection script. Plesk control panel seems to
have a similar limitation. Most Cpanel hosts and clients seem to accept subdomain addresses without www prefixes, but it is nicer
to have the same addressing flexibility as is observed in numerous www.subdomain addresses proliferating on the web.

Easily fixed by editing DNS and httpd.conf

in the "spirit" that is intended. I was going to use my own hosting
provider to reinforce my point, but I will instead use a subdomain
of your company URL as an example:
http://forums.weinbar.com resolves to the intended place,
http://www.forums.weinbar.com resolves to a "page not found",
(at least on my browser display.)

http://www.mail.yahoo.com , and
http://mail.yahoo.com addresses both resolve to mail.yahoo.com

There has been much discussion on other threads here, as far
as solutions, but, I have found nothing that will easliy solve this
Cpanel subdomain address limitation. My understanding is that
changes to httpd.conf that will solve the problem, usually are
soon overwritten, involuntarily, but automatically.

Again, I am only attempting to make my point, not to single you
out or offend you.

No offense. I just never set up our domain that way.

It is very easy to set this up. I just added the www cname to forums.weinbar.com and it now resolves as www.forums.weinbar.com as well. (your DNS may take a bit to propagate)

It will not be overwritten. Cpanel is only an interface. You can still make manual edits.

I recall now that I've read on other forums that the problem is that webhost manager overrides RewriteEngine Off instruction
that is required in the httpd.conf script, at least that is my limited
understanding of the limitation in making the instruction
permanent. I have approached several Cpanel hosts who are
members here and none could offer name hosting that would
function with a subdomain or a "folder short url" script application. Static IP's seem to be required and no Cpanel or
Plesk host offers sub subdomain creation, or the ability to
address subdomains as www.subdomain.domain.com. If you
have discovered how to overcome this, competitors will be
interested. http://www.forums still does not resolve for me to
your forums subdomain.

It just may take a bit of time for propagation, but if you want to see it immediately, set your DNS servers to 216.139.227.5 and 216.139.227.200 temporarily.

I tried reaching http://www.forums.weinbar.com via AOL browser,
instead of I.E., and it resolved to your address properly. If you
are a Cpanel Host, and the changes that you made to httpd.conf
do not get overwritten, othe Cpanel hosts should take notice of
your abilities. I am skeptical, but hopeful. If you are able to get
subdomains to resolve with www prefix, your solution should
also permit sub subdomains creation, also.

Yes, we are a cpanel host and these changes will not get overwritten. I have never had any of the entries in the config files overwritten. And yes, you can have sub subdomains and sub sub subdomains, etc., not just www.sub.domain.com

I only see postings about why you should have a own IP address.

let's turn it around now, why NOT have one (besides the reason that you don't need it) ?

There's another good reason to have a static IP I have not seen mentioned here. That is to park domains on top of others. For example, you would need a static IP to park xfields.com on top of xfields.net.

Originally posted by rence
There's another good reason to have a static IP I have not seen mentioned here. That is to park domains on top of others. For example, you would need a static IP to park xfields.com on top of xfields.net.

Nope. Can be done quite easily on a shared IP

I forgot to mention that it depends on the platform.

Which platform doesn't allow it?

Parking a domain on an apache system without an IP is simple, just make sure there's a server alias entry for that domain and voila works just fine.

As far as www being infront of a subdomain, the www would be a 3rd (or 4th depending on which way you look @ it) subdomain, they generally don't have www infront of them, a real domain is just domain.com , and www is a subdomain of it, www was used origionally to symbolize the world wide web, but really its just a preference, i myself have never tried to access a subdomain with a www infront of it.

<www was used origionally to symbolize the world wide web, but really its just a preference, i myself have never tried to access a subdomain with a www infront of it.>

Daniel, I cannot access the arin.net domain address with my
browser unless I prefix thar address with www

http://arin.net does not resolve.....

http://www.arin.net does resolve.....

With all due respect to your opinion and domain addressing
habits/preferences, an inability to create sub.domain.com
addresses that do resolve when a www.sub.domain.com
address is used, is a shortcoming as well as an inadequacy.
http://www.mail.yahoo.com does resolve. The subdomains that
I create on my Cpanel hosted accounts do not resolve with a
www prefix, unless I have a static IP account and add a $60
php subdomain redirection script. If weinbar.com can accomplish
www.sub.domain.com functionality, is VO unresponsive to a
request for www.sub.domain.com functionality because it cannot be done, or because it is not viewed as a signifigant or necessary feature ?

Well, as WeinBar said, its all a matter of how dns is done, their all just A records and Cnames in the dns along with a few apache changes. Its easy to accomplish, however, its just the way cpanel decided to setup subdomains, and actually as far as i can tell no-one has ever requested a www.sub.domain.com from us, of course i don't man the desk all the time so i can't say for 100% thou :)

Originally posted by yellowed
<www was used origionally to symbolize the world wide web, but really its just a preference, i myself have never tried to access a subdomain with a www infront of it.>

Daniel, I cannot access the arin.net domain address with my
browser unless I prefix thar address with www

http://arin.net does not resolve.....

http://www.arin.net does resolve.....

With all due respect to your opinion and domain addressing
habits/preferences, an inability to create sub.domain.com
addresses that do resolve when a www.sub.domain.com
address is used, is a shortcoming as well as an inadequacy.
http://www.mail.yahoo.com does resolve. The subdomains that
I create on my Cpanel hosted accounts do not resolve with a
www prefix, unless I have a static IP account and add a $60
php subdomain redirection script. If weinbar.com can accomplish
www.sub.domain.com functionality, is VO unresponsive to a
request for www.sub.domain.com functionality because it cannot be done, or because it is not viewed as a signifigant or necessary feature ?

I don't know why you insist on using a WWW in a sub domain, unless if the subdomain is on a separate web server and you have a bunch of other separate servers for ftp, dns, news, database , etc... and of course mp3 :D for the subdomain and you want it labeled as such to properly identify them, other then that it is pointless.

<I don't know why you insist on using a WWW in a sub domain>

Because my competitors offer the option of www.sub.domain.com
addresses, and because I do not think that address variations
that many internet users are still prone to type into their browser
address boxes should fail to resolve at all, like this example:

http://www.helpdesk.mchost.com does not resolve
http://helpdesk.mchost.com does resolve

http://www.mail.yahoo.com does resolve
http://mail.yahoo.com does resolve

and because it frustrates me that hosts do not feel that it is
necessary to provide this basic addressing capability, even when
I specifically request it from them, although it is apparently within
their capabilities to do so, because it is not necessary, in their
opinions. Subfomain addresses that could resolve, but do not,
seem more of a curiousity than my request for www.sub.domain

Weinbar, the Platform I was referring to is Ensim.

Originally posted by ^Kyo
Although the ftp protocol iteself doesnt support host headers but the software behind the server (winsock usually) can find out which hostname the client is using to connect with. So ipless ftp domains are possible.

Actually not many ftp servers support this but i am in the process of creating one for my hosting clients.
Sorry, but I am not aware of any method to retrieve the hostname where the client connected to (without getting it sent in the data by the client). Could you enlighten me :)? Thanks!

Alexander

Originally posted by zoid

Sorry, but I am not aware of any method to retrieve the hostname where the client connected to (without getting it sent in the data by the client). Could you enlighten me :)? Thanks!

Alexander

Jesus...could it be one of these Microsoft oddities again (since it relies on Winsock), or is there a RFC covering this? Does anybody know?

Topping the thread :). Hope Kyo reads it again, because I would be interested how it is possible to retrieve the hostname. Thanks.

Alexander

With a dedicated IP you can FTP to your host before your registrar has activated or transfered your domain.

You can do that with a shared IP also.

Originally posted by swissfreak
With a dedicated IP you can FTP to your host before your registrar has activated or transfered your domain.

This was discussed earlier in the thread already...

There is still the search engine problem as mentioned earlier in this thread. It's not only Altavista and Infossek, another search engine recognizing and "taking care" of IPs is Google.

IPs ARE an issue with search engines and therefore not unimportant by any means. A top notch hosted site with no traffic doesn't make much sense in a way.

IMHO hosts should get more involved with the IP-search engine issue and not take it too lightly and only from a pure technical viewpoint, because a customer with traffic and a successfull site might stay longer.

I find it insane that SE's care so much about IPs since they are getting changed all the time as already mentioned in this thread (change hosts or host changes IP etc..) and domains stay longer (with the same webmaster/company/entity) but oh my... they do what they do

Look at www.webmasterworld.com

They discuss everything related to search-engines and how to get well indexed and they also discuss ips'.

It's good reading and they seem very helpful!

I'm a firm believer in name based hosting and nothing will change that. All of our accounts are name based unless they want SSL and/or anonymous FTP as there is no other reason to give them an IP. As for the search engines - well they don't make the rules on IPs and they shouldn't be so far behind the times, like others have said, the IP of an offending site changes far more than the domain name does.

One thing about name-based hosting I've run into is e-mail problems. Many people can't come to grips with an e-mail username that happens to be their full e-mail address. With IP-based hosting, you can give users usernames in the form of username, as opposed to username@domain.com.

With namebased hosting, you do not have to give usernames in the form of username@domain.com (I'm guessing this was some control panel software that set things up like this?).

Originally posted by ShellBounder
One thing about name-based hosting I've run into is e-mail problems. Many people can't come to grips with an e-mail username that happens to be their full e-mail address. With IP-based hosting, you can give users usernames in the form of username, as opposed to username@domain.com.

Absolutely not true at all. It is totally dependant on the mail server software installed and how it resolves domain names and local users. It has nothing to do with IP addressing.

hehee i like a dedicated ip just cause it feels cool to own a dedicateed ip ? < anyone else feel this !

Originally posted by sasjamal
hehee i like a dedicated ip just cause it feels cool to own a dedicateed ip ? < anyone else feel this !

No because you don't own it, you are only renting it from month to month, same as we all are.

You can have ANON FTP with a shared FTP --- PLESK Anyone? I love it!

Originally posted by WeinBar


Absolutely not true at all. It is totally dependant on the mail server software installed and how it resolves domain names and local users. It has nothing to do with IP addressing.

According to my mail logs, no hostname is reported by POP clients opon login. Otherwise, the Host: HTTP request header would not have been invented. It's impossible to bind sockets to domain names, just IP addresses.