On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 18:13 +0100, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 01:39:36PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > > > > Paul Smith wrote: > > > The current one works fine for me except that I really want HTTPS > > > support, which the current server doesn't provide. > > > > First let me ask why you want https access? It is terribly slow. You > > are a member and can use ssh. Why not use ssh access? There is no > > advantage to using https over ssh but there are many disadvantages. > > It is really only a last ditch fallback method.
Sorry Bob, somehow I either never got or accidentally deleted your reply :(. The access is not for me; I do indeed use SSH. As Leo points out the access is for anonymous read-only access that is secure and proof against MitM attacks. I'm not asking for _authenticated_ HTTPS support, just anonymous access over HTTPS. More straightforwardly, I'm looking for HTTPS as an alternative to our current HTTP support, not an alternative to our current SSH support. Cheers!
