On August 8, 2018 1:57 PM, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> Right. This is the recommendation in the RFC [0]. It would be
> counter-productive if the webserver informed the browser that the
> website should only be loaded over a secure connection, and then the
> user was given the option of ignore that. T
Grizzled long-time Tor user here. I seek basic, reliable POP/IMAP/SMTP
service with an option to use my own domain (to avoid lock-in with a
provider), from a well-established provider who will not likely disappear
*and* will never block my account for Tor logins, demand selfies with
gov-id, etc. I
On August 7, 2018 11:14 PM, nusenu wrote:
>> did you notice the non-HSTS/HSTS distinction when trying to add an exception?
On August 8, 2018 1:51 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> If there is, would have to look closer, thx.
The following is to help searchers who rammed their heads into this
problem, as I
