----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Lane" rlane32@gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jay Ashworth jra@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