here's my caddy config for a reverse proxy with TLS:
sub.domain.com { reverse_proxy localhost:8080 }
sub.domain.com { reverse_proxy localhost:8080 }
$ caddy reverse-proxy --from sub.domain.com --to localhost:8080
sub.domain.com, sub.domain.com. { reverse_proxy localhost:8080 }
Because caddy currently doesn’t handle DNS names correctly, so you have to duplicate every single virtual hostname config (it’s a long-standing open bug)
[EDIT: Thanks to francislavoie for reminding me about the shorter syntax for this]
sub.domain.com, sub.domain.com. {
reverse_proxy localhost:8080
}
Trailing dots are complicated and really not worth the complexity it would involve to support them. See https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2022/05/12/a-tale-of-a-trailing-...
It’s a genuine issue I’ve got with Caddy, and if someone recommends Caddy, I’m justified to mention the drawbacks of Caddy.
In this case, a user recommended switching from nginx to Caddy, and nginx users (who expect trailing dot domains to just work) should keep this drawback in mind.
Every time you compare Caddy or Traefik to nginx or apache, you should expect to also see the drawbacks of Caddy and Traefik mentioned.
How can I trust caddy complies with standards in other areas if caddy isn’t willing to follow the standard (which really doesn’t take much work) in this area? It’d be different if the de facto and the de jure standard diverged, as e.g., with IRC, but that’s not the case. nginx, Apache, IIS, Google’s GWS, they all follow the standard exactly, it’s just traefik and caddy that don’t.
It’s not an issue of this situation in of itself, it’s an issue of eroding trust. It’s the famous brown m&ms.
P.S.: Your arguments explain why implementing this would be a lot of work (keeping the ticket open as known issue is something I’d be fine with), but they can’t justify ignoring the standard and closing it as wontfix.
Except it actually does take a lot of work, because it's not as simple as you make it out to be. It's very complex.
Look at the blog post I linked above from the author of cURL, looks at how much time was wasted just to support that "feature". If trailing dots weren't supported, there would be less code, and less headaches for everyone.
And either way, your argument that because we aren't "standards-compliant" here means we won't follow standards elsewhere is the slippery slope fallacy. Show us evidence of where we aren't standards compliant, then we'll talk.
It’s one thing to limit the scope of your project. cURL is trying to support every de facto and de jure standard out there, your project doesn’t have to. A lot of tail-end features have very diminishing returns. My own projects don’t do it either.
But it’s something entirely else if you just close the issues as WONTFIX, claim they’re not part of a standard (until you’re proven wrong), then claim it’s not used in the real world (it is, otherwise cURL wouldn’t implement it), then verbally attack users who point out that you’re not supporting it.
Just accept it, acknowledge that you’re not supporting it and that it’s not part of your scope. Own your faults, just be honest.
I’ve got far more persistent and far more annoying users complaining about missing features in Quasseldroid on every release or post for the past decade, but that’s no reason to get angry with them.
I didn't verbally attack you. I just asked that you stop bringing it up on every thread where Caddy is mentioned. It causes us stress and wastes our time to have to re-explain ourselves the same way every time. Yes I used an aggressive tone, but it's because we're frustrated to continue hearing it. We always have in the back of our mind "is that one person going to post about trailing dot domains _again_?"
> Just accept it, acknowledge that you’re not supporting it and that it’s not part of your scope.
We did that. That's what a WONTFIX is.
It sounds like you don't accept that it's a shortcoming, instead trying to justify and excuse it.
You don't see the authors of nginx angrily complaining at you every time you comment on a post about their httpd. (Which this thread was about originally, after all)
What is kuschku arguing against in ELI5 terms?
It is not _configured_ by default. There is an important distinction.
It's not mentioned in documentation because the documentation [1] does not provide an _exhaustive_ list of the kinds of addresses that Caddy can be configured to serve.
1. https://caddyserver.com/docs/caddyfile/concepts#addresses
Seriously though - that's a pretty bizarre bug, absent from both nginx and apache httpd. And that attitude in sibling comment doesn't help either.
:/
2. I’d love to use caddy. I’m especially interested in using it for my status page, as that needs to be hosted outside my normal cluster. Ideally it should be an absolutely minimal setup (so nothing except caddy + status page, with status monitors on other servers reporting back to the status page). This would be the perfect use case for caddy, but right now I’m using an overcomplicated nginx setup because I don’t feel like I can trust caddy.