Posted by Spartanicus on 02/07/07 17:59

Toby A Inkster <usenet200701@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

>> Btw, I'm still looking for the reason why hosting providers such as this
>> one are unwilling to enable .htaccess. 110mb.com only cite a potential
>> for "abuse"
>
>Examples:
>
>1. Via site-wide httpd.conf they block third-party linking to images.
>Via .htaccess you enable it and start using their server as a repository
>for images linked to from your "real" hosts.

httpd.conf is the master file, disable something there and don't allow
it to be overridden and there's no way it can be enabled again by user's
..htaccess files. Also 110mb.com don't currently employ hotlink
protection.

>2. They lock down PHP in php.ini. You over-ride their settings using
>php_value and php_flag directives in .htaccess.

Every AllowOverride Options directive can be individually controlled,
don't allow an Options directive to be overridden via httpd.conf and
there is no way to undo it via .htaccess

>Also, there's the factor of .htaccess files placing more load onto the
>server than httpd.conf settings.

Unlike some other free webhosts like portland.co.uk, 110mb.com currently
do not restrict users from running any of the popular scripts which
place a high load on the server. The server load that might be caused by
the use of Apache .htaccess files should pale into insignificance in
comparison.

--
Spartanicus

[Back to original message]