When you finally retire
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/... etc.
etc. Have them HTTP 301 permanently redirect to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... etc.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2011/2/13 Ville Stadista ville.stadi...@gmail.com:
Currently, if you login on secure you are not logged-in on the
unencrypted site, even if I allow setting third party cookies in the
browser settings. I assume the login session is common to both
unencrypted and encrypted, so would it be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article 18849937.7157.1297583642909.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com,
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Yeah, secure.wikimedia.org's URL scheme isn't really friendly
to outsiders. Historically, this is because SSL certificates are
Are there _no_ performance issues we should be concerned about here?
I know local ISP's did (used to?) throttle all encrypted traffic.
Would this fall into that category?
Maury
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
there are actually providers like www.startssl.com who issue free certificates
(only validated by email address though). StartSSLs root certificate is
included in nearly all recent browsers.
Leo
On Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM, River Tarnell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
afaik, the serverside encryption hasn't got any mentionable performance penalty.
Clients might be a bit slower due to additional roundtrips caused by the
handshakes.
On Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Maury Markowitz wrote:
Are there _no_ performance issues we should be concerned about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article cfb39d2bb60f411485d2be6d9db07...@gmail.com,
Leo diebu...@gmail.com wrote:
there are actually providers like www.startssl.com who issue free
certificates (only validated by email address though).
StartSSLs root certificate is included
Ah, right. That obviously be too much hassle. Their website is not that clear,
but I think it's 100$ (per year?) for wildcard certificates. (StartSSL™
identity and organization validation are available for only US $ 49.90 each,
where organization validation implies prior identity validation.
- Original Message -
From: River Tarnell r.tarn...@ieee.org
In article
18849937.7157.1297583642909.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com,
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Yeah, secure.wikimedia.org's URL scheme isn't really friendly
to outsiders. Historically, this is because
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Maury Markowitz
maury.markow...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there _no_ performance issues we should be concerned about here?
I know local ISP's did (used to?) throttle all encrypted traffic.
Would this fall into that category?
Well, there's nothing we can really do
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Leo diebu...@gmail.com wrote:
afaik, the serverside encryption hasn't got any mentionable performance
penalty.
Clients might be a bit slower due to additional roundtrips caused by the
handshakes.
On Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Maury Markowitz
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@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
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@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,
You did get the EFF is pushing a Firefox plugin that has a rule that
redirects all WP accesses to the secure site part of that report, though,
right? This curve has probably already started to ramp; now might be a
good time for someone ops-y to be thinking about this.
I'd be concerned about
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, secure.wikimedia.org's URL scheme isn't really friendly
to outsiders. Historically, this is because SSL certificates are
expensive, and there just wasn't enough money in the budget
to get more of them for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article AANLkTikgDVs2zHMBzrd5dDkjsjadQVLmHjYpfjBhY+=n...@mail.gmail.com,
Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM, River Tarnell r.tarn...@ieee.org wrote:
SSL certificates aren't that cheap, but only
Someone posted a link to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
Delving further, we find
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Main_Page says
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, when in fact the real site is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I don't understand the email also... The secure site has been arround
for years...
2011/2/13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Someone posted a link to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
Delving further, we find
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Someone posted a link to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
M.
Delving further, we find
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Main_Page says
Welcome to Wikimedia
Fine.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Someone posted a link to
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage
Delving further, we find
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Main_Page says
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, when in fact the real site is
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 10:18:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] secure.wikimedia.org commons sockpuppet site
I don't understand the email also... The secure site has been arround
for years...
2011/2/13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Someone posted
- Original Message -
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
In fact on any page on either site, one cannot find any link to the
corresponding page on the other site.
Yeah, secure.wikimedia.org's URL scheme isn't really friendly
to outsiders. Historically, this is because SSL
23 matches
Mail list logo
