Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:15:03 -0400
On Thursday 19 October 2000 12:14, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> > That's in fact the _goal_ of this change, as suggested George on
> > kfm-devel. The _browser_ supports SSL, even if we're currently in a
> > non-SSL connection. This might be used by some servers to redirect us to
> > the SSL web pages.
> Eek. No. More abuse of the useragent string. *sigh*
> spamming pristine http headers. *SIGH*.
> Mind you, accurately reporting whether or not the https slave is installed
> is fine with me.. but to use it to propogate stupidity... grr.. and what
> if https is installed afterwords? Should the https tarball include http
> as well? Hrm.
It's not perfect.. just closer to what would be right until it is redone.