Is it "trolling" if one expects a webserver to work like every other webserver, even offering to make the required changes?
If you want to learn why supporting FQDNs is important, you can actually read the issue and PR on the traefik repo where they chose to add support for this:
Yes, because Caddy is not like every other webserver. It also automates TLS management, can act as an ACME server, etc.
You make it out to be a simple change, but it's really not. And the arguments for making any changes are not compelling enough to warrant the risks involved. Compliance for the sake of compliance is completely pointless.
> Yes, because Caddy is not like every other webserver. It also automates TLS management, can act as an ACME server, etc.
That’s why I’m comparing it to traefik, which can also automate TLS management, in the exact same way (even using the same libraries for most of the functionality, they’re after all both go webservers).
> And the arguments for making any changes are not compelling enough to warrant the risks involved
Why is it that you think you know better than the maintainers of e.g. traefik? It’s not like this is legacy functionality they kept around just for the sake of it, they added it in 2019 because there’s demand for it, today.
> even using the same libraries for most of the functionality
You're wrong. Caddy uses a superior library that's been more stress-tested at scale in production: https://github.com/caddyserver/certmagic and https://github.com/mholt/acmez - neither of which lego uses. Bugs and limitations in lego caused severe problems for several of our larger customers.
If you want to learn why supporting FQDNs is important, you can actually read the issue and PR on the traefik repo where they chose to add support for this:
https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/4622 https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/4763
They just accepted the issue, and fixed it. Super easy, no 4 years of "no one needs this" "no you're wrong" "the specs are wrong" "you're trolling"