[greyface-]

This was mine, too, until I started regularly using a (university) network where the local resolver resolved example.com to 127.0.0.1. I complained, and was told that RFC2606 gave them license to override it to anything they wanted, and that this behavior would not be changed. Doesn't square with my reading of the RFC, but complaining further wasn't going to achieve anything.

Now I use neverssl.com.

[beej71]

RFC 2606 is a "best current practices" document, which is less stringent than a standard. I'd say it gives them flexibility.

Even updated by RFC 6761, the practices surrounding example.com only go so far as SHOULD and SHOULD NOT.

That said, I think it's a horrible idea to treat example.com differently, but that's just because I can't think of a single reason why you would want to do so. :)

[beej71]

Yikes. We use example.com all the time in my intro to network programming class. HTTPS would get in the way of learning the basics, so I'm glad there are some HTTP options out there still.

(Yeah, they could just run a local one-liner web server, but that's not as fun.)

[prepend]

I don’t miss the seemingly arbitrary restrictions from university IT admins.

A university I attended blocked all BitTorrent traffic at the protocol level. They theoretically allowed exceptions per their policy but when I applied for some bioinformatics images to be allowed they said they would only allow specific files for a 24 hour window. I applied for a file and got no response. I applied for 1000 files and got no response. Then I gave up.

[brokenmachine]

>Then I gave up.

I'm surprised you didn't set up your own system to work around the stupid restrictions.