Anunayj

30 ms·

331.
by Anunayj 6y ago
Hmm is just grabbing a domain name and pointing subdomains to internal IP address bad idea? Cause that's what I do and I thought everyone did this.
332.
by Anunayj 6y ago
Would be even more funny if the number went into negatives on subsequent copy pastes.
333.
by Anunayj 6y ago
not for me. EffEyeEnDeeEmEe
334.
by Anunayj 6y ago
encrypt with my private key?
335.
by Anunayj 6y ago
well .well-known should be well guarded anyway, since it is used for things like issuing SSL certs by Let's Encrypt (and possibly more CAs). Giving anyone access to your root of webserver is giving anyone access to your website.
336.
by Anunayj 6y ago
Public keys can be big + Why keep the key there if it is already available somewhere else. and the draft allows 3 ways to add a key - by uri - by OPENPGPKEY DNS record - by key fingerprint (assuming it's on a public keyserver)
337.
by Anunayj 6y ago
I don't even get why the standard needs to be bot friendly, bots are literally the last thing I want at my security.txt spamming my inbox.
338.
by Anunayj 6y ago
haha, It gets worse when the guy at facebook employee says "Oh I get it, but i can't fix it and I won't try to get it fixed either.", And you so wanna teach them a lesson but just can't.
339.
by Anunayj 6y ago
posting your email in a not easily parsable way can save you a lot of spam. (rot13 it, break up characters, etc). Atleast that should cut most of the spam. This might be not standard, but I do not really see why we would need security.txt
340.
by Anunayj 6y ago
I feel like Firefox should implement these features, they are excellent features that even though may have their risks are risks well understood by many firefox users. Keeping them disabled by default (and behind flags) is also a possible c