Mavericks as a Intranet Server... without Server.app?

You don't need Server. Server would likely only make your life worse. It has some unique services and if you need those, it is the best tool for the job. Otherwise, it will just complicate things.

Your problem is with domain names. On a local network, OS X can create its own domain names using Bonjour. These names are in the ".local" domain. If you just define all of your names to be "myComputerName.local" then everything will work magically. You can even install Bonjour on Windows or Linux machines should you need to access your services from those.

That is, by far, the best solution. Use those names in your client access and in your vhosts. If you want to use something else, you will likely have to add a custom entry in /etc/hosts on each machine (both clients and servers) on your local network. Complicating this will be DHCP which assigns dynamic IP addresses. A real name server could sort this all out but now you are into OS X Server territory and over my head. Usually, once you get to this level, you just ask your corporate IT department to handle it and, presto!, the problem will be solved in 2-3 months.

The problem is you are already jumping ahead to the "something else" part. If you want to use a ".local" domain, keep that out of /etc/hosts. That is a different name resolution system. Having those entries in /etc/hosts will make everyone confused.

Furthermore, if you are running on a local network, 127.0.0.1 is not valid. You have to use the IP address for your local network. I have no idea what that might be. Likely candidates will be 192.168.1.3, 10.10.10.12, among several hundred other possibilities. In a normal setup, your IP address will be dynamically determined. There is no way to tell what it might be. If you give your computer the name "mysite1" in System Preferences > Sharing, then it will show up to any other Bonjour-enabled devices as "mysite1.local".

You cannot dig into Apache vhosts until the DNS layer is running correctly.

It looks as though AT & T are doing their best to limit their customers' options.

I am in the UK with my original telephone line. I am not forced to use my ISPs modem/router so I use a secondhand one I bought for £20. This has wireless, 4 wired ethernet ports, firewall and many software configurable options. I recently turned off wired DHCP and use fixed IPs internally which are slightly more secure and easy to use with my servers.

I see that others have given up trying to do much with, or behind, the very limited HGV-3800. What are your prospects of changing to a decent router?

You are still going too far. When you are speaking of a name that "works" or not, all you need is ping. If you can ping "ServerName.local" from a remote machine, then it works. If you attempt to ping "mysite.local", it should not work. You would have to have a machine with its Bonjour name setup as "mysite". Which one do you want to use?

The standard Bonjour setup only allows for one server name. You can have more server names depending on how much configuration you want to do. But do you need multiple server names? And do you need multiple server names to be accessible from anywhere inside your local network?

Sorry to hear choice is so limited in parts of the US. I don't recall my daughter in Washington being so restricted.

In the UK we have many ISPs competing for our custom: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps.html

For about £20 a month I can cover the cost of:

• Unlimited data via 16 M bits per second download speed - upload about 1 M bit per second
• Line rental
• All UK phone calls 24/7
• All US and other popular destinations phone calls 24/7
• 2 domain names

To keep within this total cost we have to accept a few limitation:

• Select cheapest main supplier annually - TalkTalk this year
• Route calls via cheapest supplier - dial thro' service during office hours and abroad - 18185 & sister company
• Use ddns (historic free zoneedit) rather than fixed IP for public web server - fixed IPs would double the cost
• Use alternative supplier for domain names and email - Gandi
• Maintain my own web server at home - ISPs only provide a page or two without charge

The above does not cover the cost of:

• Our recently acquired mobile wi-fi - at least £10 a month extra
• Mobile (cell) phones - at least £10 a month extra each for low use pay as you go

Not easy yet to get a cost effective package which included the mobile costs but this may change.

I'm happy to see these posts, and especially to etresoft's global ISP Domain Assignment 3 month corporate resolution time-frame.

We need these issues resolved now in the states for all parties concerned (including me!).

Given AT&T DHCP routers for the current example, I have cleared all issues regarding DHCP service, domain name re-assignment for customers, and minimum customer service requirements. AT&T has addressed all the issues and is ready for customer access to AT&T networks. (By access, I mean sharing files and posting web pages from home).

I then encountered an issue with Apple's push notifications service, where I was being notified three times per minute that I did not have a valid SSL certificate. Here's the news: I DON'T WANT ONE. IN conjunction with that, I suspected, my web server was being shut down and re-assigned by configd from the ATT assigned domain name to the local domain name.

After calling Apple and escalating the issue, I received a return call explaining that there was nothing Apple could do and that the issue could not be escalated further for resolution. OK, so I found my own solution: Reduce the 'local' name in sharing preferences to nothing, forcing Mavericks to wait for the ATT assigned domain name (I was under the false understanding from internet google searches that the issue was due to ATT taking too long to serve the domain name to Mavericks). That solution worked fine for 6 days.

Just now, the server shut down again, reset by Apple. Only this time, the local domain name was back as the default. And, outrageously, when I went back in to remove the local name, I could not. A blank entry was no longer allowed. Further, I could not enter my machine IP address because dots were no longer accepted in that field.

So I'm now waiting for a response from apple to explain 1)Who is sending so many notifications throught the push notifications service regarding SSL certificates, and why are they allowing it and 2)Who changed the filtering for sharing preferences fields and how and why. Plus, 3)Are they going to give me any guidance on how THEY think I should be posting files and html docs to the internet, or are they now in the business of preventing that sort of activity?

I'm sure there's a simple solution there, and many people working to get our system up and running in an American fashion, but the confusion (along with the ignorance) is a little frustrating at the moment. Sorting legitimate government security concerns from legitimate corporate security concerns from legitimate citizen requirements, from all the other stuff out there is a bit testing.

Maybe AT&T DHCP routers and security system (reviewing traffic through the assigned domain name) are in conflict with Apple's pre-assigned IP address with SSL traffic monitoring security system? And apparently then, Apple has no way to trust the customer to reconfigure their computer for whichever type of network they choose to use? And will even go to lengths to prevent customers from logging-on to an ATT network for services? I doubt that is the reason or explanation, but that's where I am now, and waiting for Apple to call back with an explanation, which apparently is requiring more time than a day on the part of Apple.

I'm posting this as a matter of record, and I think a solution is on its way. I wish I had more information to go on, but alas, citizens are not privy to much of it and we must make our best guesses to resolve our part of the deals going on out there.

One thing is clear, Apple cannot require SSL certification or special sotware in order for a cutomer to use their computer as a server.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to do and exactly what difficulties you have encountered.

Do you have a local computer expert who could help you?

Actually, I wasn't addressing you, Neville, but if you want to know, I'm clearing OUR system for citizens to use the internet. Apparently there is some conflict with that from vaarious interests present in the USA.

We seem to have multiple intelligence and security interests trying to gain a monopoly on the information security system. Here's the deal: we do not need a single information monitoring hub. We can have multiple private traffic monitoring systems that are all subject to inspection by federal permit or local jurisidictions for local traffic and local addresses.

By extension, we can and should have multiple verification services. By the way, I just got off the phone with Apple and they assured me that a customer is not expected to have to purchase special software or to purchase an SSL certificate in order to use their computer as a web server, and that apple computers should be perfectly compatible with ATT DHCP routers. ATT assured me that Macs used as servers should be perfectly compatible with all ATT ISP services. Apple will call me next week regarding the reason for so many SSL verification notifications, and I also assured them that I would double check for configuration errors on my part that could be causing the issues.

IF the solution is not simple enough for most customers, then it is not an acceptable solution. All of this used to be very easy with the 'web sharing' switch, which has been removed. Still, I'm sure there is a solution.

AS soon as I ended the call with Apple, an alert appeared asking if I wanted kdc to accept incoming connections. So I'm sort of wondering if Kerberos has been triggering the incoming connections to my computer as a security flag.

That is my best guess at this point, and maybe you know something about that? I thought Kerberos was operating a third party verification service (and traffic monitoring, by extension). I don't mind that coming from MIT, as well as the monitoring that is imposed (or received) from AT&T through their assigned domain name service. However, it seems there is also new, unfounded, pressure for web server customers to purchase yet another SSL encryption (and monitoring) service? That is not going to fly here.

Again, maybe I should have notified Kerberos through some kind of configuration, or maybe I still have to make the proper configuration on my system somewhere else. But these kinds of difficulties are not appropriate, when the previous systems were easily managed with a user-friendly GUI.

To simplify the answer: I want my iMac to serve to the internet through my AT&T DHCP router without being disconected by configd every 2 hours to 6 days. Right now, in fact, it is permanantly disconnected and will not reconnect because of third party interference.

And the solution is: Now that both 'websharing' and 'sharing' preferences for setting your hostname have been demolished, you must now set your hostname via terminal.

It appears there is a legitimate concern about 'copy-cat' hostnames, and users setting hostnames on their computers to imitate other hostnames on the internet and interecept that traffic?

SSL certification is obviously a good system for preventing that, but over-stepping the bounds of preventing individuals from entering the internet, especially through their ISP assigned domain name, seems to be happenning more than it should, or at too great an inconvenience to the average customer.

A better awareness of the issues is in order, however, at the point of purchase of the ISP service and not through broad scare or integrity testing campaigns which oppress and prevent people from using their computers to their full potential.