On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jay Ashworth
<jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
He's complaining, in effect, that there are
more than one URL for
identical
content, which is in fact generally a bad idea, but in this case, of
course,
he's wrong: different *access protocols* are being used, so it's not
possible
to conform the two...
Whether it is in fact still a Best Practice to make sure that
they're the
same is another matter; I understand *why* we have a separate domain
name
for https, architecturally, but I'm not sure I *like* it.
This is something I'd very much like to fix. I had a fairly in depth
discussion with the other ops folks about this last week. I think I'm
going to put it on my goal list; however, we have a lot of higher
priority tasks, so I wouldn't expect anything too soon.
Oh, I'm not, and secure.* is fine for me, for now. But see my other note
to River.
Cheers,
-- jra