jspaetzel

Might as well toss the azure comparble ones in here while we're at it.

Azure Virtual Machines ~= Google Compute Engine ~= Amazon EC2

Azure Websites/App Service ~= Google App Engine ~= Amazon Elastic Beanstalk

Quick lookup says yes, # host imdb.com imdb.com has address 207.171.166.22 imdb.com has address 72.21.210.29 imdb.com has address 72.21.206.80 # host 207.171.166.22 22.166.171.207.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer 166-22.amazon.com.

You're right for pages with links to login pages. Fortunately in this case, ubuntu does not appear to link to login.launchpad.net anywhere on their main website as far as I can tell. I'm sure it's linked somewhere but I was only able to find it via a search. Odd.

In any case I understand the point of all this, get the big sites using it so that the little ones might adopt it as well, the issue is that the cost of adding ssl does not add value to sites without logins. Perhaps letsencrypt.org will make it worthwhile to encrypt those static sites as well, it'd be nice to see hosting providers include this as a default.

I'm not sure what happens on the site after login on WSJ, if they are doing it semi-correctly then it should be a secure page after login. If that's not the case, then yea they should improve this. Not picking through them individually, there are a number of pages outside the newspaper category that are strictly informational without even login forms.

Session hijacking only works on webpages with sessions. Most of these urls are static informational pages without sessions, from the several I looked at.

I don't suppose we should be checking the pages that should actually be secure. IE Ubuntu is listed as bad, why not check their login page? https://login.launchpad.net/ or launchpad.net. Perhaps once https://letsencrypt.org/ comes available it will be worth the extra effort to encrypt everything. In the interim it's most likely a waste of funds, especially for projects that operate on donations.

Edit: I was surprised to see the WSJ listed as Bad. Checking their login form, something that should be encrypted, the post goes to... https://id.wsj.com a secure page. I wont go through the entire list, but I expect most of the ones in this list have a similar configuration.

and also has not been updated since May 28, 2013

I think this would be great if they could do that.. but when it comes to millions of users I dont think even google can handle that much feedback publicly without falling seriously short. It's amazing they are able to address as many issues as they do, after all there are like 14000 open issues right now in that tracker.

I'm not sure if you guys actually even looked at what these requests were but most of them are irrelevant and rightly so... obsolete/irrelevant features. To choose one particular example that stood out to me from the first page with 198 stars: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1140

I wont even get started on how much information this is lacking for it to be actually executed. The point being that most of the ones in the list have not even been touched in over a year and more closely resemble a Christmas wishlist than actual issues. They should be closed since they are cluttering up the workflow of real problems and it would be a waste of an engineer's time to respond to them all adequately.

If they are still relevant a year later maybe you should go through and do something productive like creating a new issue with updated details.

...ly good

The mobile version is even less usable, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

I think that this sentence needs to be gotten rid of completely. - Webmail is fundamentally not something that can run on your own computer. The word is "web" mail, not desktop mail, it's just going to confuse users.

In addition to it being confusing, because of dynamic IPs and residential port blocking you may be able to run it on your computer, you just won't be able to do anything with it due to other internet infrastructure... - Sending mail from home is almost guaranteed to fail sometimes/often, due to dynamic ip ranges which are frequently blocked. - Port 25 and port 80 are blocked by most major american ISPs these days for residential services. Making this unusable from a home server. Not to mention it's against many ISPs terms of service to run a server from home without paying for a business package. (That's right, it's not just google fibre) - SPF records and other forms of email authentication? You would also need a third party DDNS service if using a dynamic IP.

So with all of that said, I like the interface pictures. It could be a good competitor to webmail clients like roundcube and friends.

The problem with this is that it's basically asking to be manipulated.

I'm most amazed by the last link you posted that copied it, they did not even modify the background image. Only the logo and text were changed.

I saw the buy option once but when I selected the 16 gb model it disappeared again. Disappointed.