policy change: static verification methods

> I understand also your concern to push http 1.1, but you _can't_ sell 
> the virtual web hosting without a fixed IP. The percentage of non 
> http 1.1 compliant browser is just too high for a business customer 
> to accept that is vanity name will not be seen by those.

This is nonsense. About two years ago we switched to virtual websites without
a static IP#. We did a lot of testing beforehand, and found < 0.5% of the
webbrowsers not sending Host:. This was over two years ago. This number surely
has dropped significantly since, and I bet it's below 0.1% now. These
stats were made on our website, which gets about 4 to 5 million hits a day. 
Imho this is no longer a valid reason to keep using static ip#s for
virtual websites.  

And like my collegue (;)) from Xlink, we havent had a single complaint in
the two years we've been doing this.

Regards,

Cor

ps: actually we did get a complaint ;) The first virtual website happened to
    be a sexually oriented site, and another customer with a faulty browser
    was really confused why he didnt see his own site, but some sex site :)
    So ever since we set up a dummy site as the first virtual website. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cor Bosman     |              XS4ALL            |  tel: +31-(0)20-398-7654 |
| cor at xs4all.net |         Technical Manager      |  fax: +31-(0)20-398-7601 |
---------------------Living on the edge of chaos-------------------------SP6--