5 ms·

Honestly, in the 5+ years of Caddy, you're the only person I've ever seen complain about this. And you're relentless about it. You bring it up on every thread o

Honestly, in the 5+ years of Caddy, you're the only person I've ever seen complain about this. And you're relentless about it. You bring it up on every thread on HN that ever has a mention of Caddy. It's very annoying. That said, you can just make a site block with that host label and Caddy will handle it just fine. You just need to explicitly ask Caddy for it. example.com, example.com. { ... }

kuschku 6y ago
> That said, you can just make a site block with that host label and Caddy will handle it just fine. You just need to explicitly ask Caddy for it. That's what mholt said as well: It's the site maintainers task to fix it. Yet caddyserver.com still doesn’t support it. > you're the only person I've ever seen complain about this I didn’t actually find the bug myself, someone else did first, but it’s something that’s been annoying me for quite a bit. > You bring it up on every thread on HN that ever has a mention of Caddy. It's very annoying. It’s definitely a red flag something people should know before using caddy, as it’s a sign caddy will also interpret other specs funnily.
- francislavoie 6y ago
  > Yet caddyserver.com still doesn’t support it. Right, because Matt (and the large majority of everyone on the internet) doesn't care. > It’s definitely a red flag something people should know before using caddy, as it’s a sign caddy will also interpret other specs funnily. Pure FUD. It's such a non-issue. As you've been told many times.
  - kuschku 6y ago
    > Pure FUD. It's such a non-issue. As you've been told many times. If it's such a non-issue, why did matt say he wouldn't accept a PR that'd fix this?
    - francislavoie 6y ago
      Because it would add unnecessary complexity to the system. It's a waste of time.
      - ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
        This has been a shitty thread to read, tbh. It's clearly not pointless if there are improvements which could be made to make the product more spec-compliant, such as handling terminating dots in Host headers. And I'm saying this as someone who's never used Caddy for anything, ever.
        francislavoie 6y ago
        If you want the background story: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632 https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632 This is all from four years ago. And kuschku hasn't taken no for an answer after all this time. It's frustrating and annoying to hear their complaints on every HN thread since. I agree with you the thread is shitty. I'm just hoping being direct will end the trolling.
        kuschku 6y ago
        Is it "trolling" if one expects a webserver to work like every other webserver, even offering to make the required changes? If you want to learn why supporting FQDNs is important, you can actually read the issue and PR on the traefik repo where they chose to add support for this: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/4622 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/4622 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/4763 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/4763 They just accepted the issue, and fixed it. Super easy, no 4 years of "no one needs this" "no you're wrong" "the specs are wrong" "you're trolling"
        francislavoie 6y ago
        Yes, because Caddy is not like every other webserver. It also automates TLS management, can act as an ACME server, etc. You make it out to be a simple change, but it's really not. And the arguments for making any changes are not compelling enough to warrant the risks involved. Compliance for the sake of compliance is completely pointless.

kuschku 6y ago

> That said, you can just make a site block with that host label and Caddy will handle it just fine. You just need to explicitly ask Caddy for it. That's what mholt said as well: It's the site maintainers task to fix it. Yet caddyserver.com still doesn’t support it. > you're the only person I've ever seen complain about this I didn’t actually find the bug myself, someone else did first, but it’s something that’s been annoying me for quite a bit. > You bring it up on every thread on HN that ever has a mention of Caddy. It's very annoying. It’s definitely a red flag something people should know before using caddy, as it’s a sign caddy will also interpret other specs funnily.

francislavoie 6y ago
> Yet caddyserver.com still doesn’t support it. Right, because Matt (and the large majority of everyone on the internet) doesn't care. > It’s definitely a red flag something people should know before using caddy, as it’s a sign caddy will also interpret other specs funnily. Pure FUD. It's such a non-issue. As you've been told many times.
- kuschku 6y ago
  > Pure FUD. It's such a non-issue. As you've been told many times. If it's such a non-issue, why did matt say he wouldn't accept a PR that'd fix this?
  - francislavoie 6y ago
    Because it would add unnecessary complexity to the system. It's a waste of time.
    - ThePowerOfFuet 6y ago
      This has been a shitty thread to read, tbh. It's clearly not pointless if there are improvements which could be made to make the product more spec-compliant, such as handling terminating dots in Host headers. And I'm saying this as someone who's never used Caddy for anything, ever.
      - francislavoie 6y ago
        If you want the background story: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632 https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632 This is all from four years ago. And kuschku hasn't taken no for an answer after all this time. It's frustrating and annoying to hear their complaints on every HN thread since. I agree with you the thread is shitty. I'm just hoping being direct will end the trolling.
        kuschku 6y ago
        Is it "trolling" if one expects a webserver to work like every other webserver, even offering to make the required changes? If you want to learn why supporting FQDNs is important, you can actually read the issue and PR on the traefik repo where they chose to add support for this: https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/4622 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/4622 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/4763 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/4763 They just accepted the issue, and fixed it. Super easy, no 4 years of "no one needs this" "no you're wrong" "the specs are wrong" "you're trolling"
        francislavoie 6y ago
        Yes, because Caddy is not like every other webserver. It also automates TLS management, can act as an ACME server, etc. You make it out to be a simple change, but it's really not. And the arguments for making any changes are not compelling enough to warrant the risks involved. Compliance for the sake of compliance is completely pointless.