Romain

Hello, We have opened #10780 to fix the initial problem described in this issue. If this doesn't fix every bug report in this issue, please open a new one to...

Hi @fkollmann @jim-barber-he @HalloTschuess @corybolar, We have discussed this issue among the maintainers. This issue is a consequence of a major change in v3 to make it easier to use...

Hello @HalloTschuess, Thanks for your feedback, and sorry for the misleading wording. By "revert #10689", I was implying removing the ingress part of the PR changes, so that the default...

@HalloTschuess my bad, I completely overlooked the Ingress changes done by #10689. You are right, there is indeed nothing to revert. I edited the plan in [my comment](https://github.com/traefik/traefik/issues/10672#issuecomment-2200246200) accordingly.

@weijiany Sure, we would gladly welcome a contribution! Thanks!

Hello @jan-thoma @CybotTM @acul009 @TheDevMinerTV, As @TheDevMinerTV mentioned, this behavior is due to changes in https://github.com/traefik/traefik/pull/10536. This is an intended behavior and was introduced to make Traefik more secure in...

I'm still confirming the behavior by changing the label, while this is not really a bug.

@leeaash This speculative "insecure" option remains to be implemented yet. @acul009 Thanks for your feedback. Are you using a TLS resolver with Traefik? We are wondering if simply allowing the...

Hello @acul009 @jan-thoma @CybotTM @kristoficko, Thanks for all the feedback! We're not against introducing an option, but first we want to make sure that the solution from #10981 doesn't fit...

@acul009 Thanks a lot for the thorough feedback! > If I got this wrong, I'd be interested to hear more about your concerns. As far as I understand, the TLS...