The list is not here to solve your problems using our free time. Especially when you're being paid to get this sorted, and we are not. So, you need to do your due diligence. If you have tested yourself, then by all means ask others to verify your findings. That indicates that you have put some effort in yourself. I'm more than happy to help someone who's put in the "hard yards" already. I am sorry that I misconstrued your post. It appears to me, at the time, that you were asking someone to do what you should be doing yourself. I didn't realise that you had taken some steps to check this yourself. I'd already spent my time contributing to your problem, and it seemed to me at the time that you were asking me to do more. My apologies for my side of the misunderstanding. Cheers Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] > On Behalf Of Fred Jones > Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2008 9:17 PM > To: thelist at lists.evolt.org > Subject: Re: [thelist] GoDaddy SSL Verification > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Nan Harbison wrote: > > I get the warning too, that the page contains unauthenticated content, so > > the godaddy tech person was not correct! > > Hmm. On my FF2 and also IE6 I now don't get an unauthenticated or > unverified content issue, so that's good. But I do get: > > This page contains both secure and insecure items. > > which I think may be due to image references not using https:// but > I'm not sure. > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ken Schaefer wrote: > >> Can you verify this for me? > > > > You can't install FF2 in a VM somewhere and test this yourself? Sorry, but > this is starting to take the p*ss > > I'm sorry that my post upset you Ken. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I > thought the point of this list was to allow people to ask for > assistance with issues just like this one. I actually DID test myself > on my FF2 but I wanted to see if anyone else is seeing different > results. If this thread is unpleasant for you, then perhaps it would > be best just not to respond. > > > FWIW, FF2 not reporting any more problems, so I think the problem is solved. > > Well, if you read the post before and after yours, it actually appears > that the problem is not 100% solved. Both those posters report that > there IS still a problem. Again, this is what I thought this list was > for--so that people can share their resources (including different > OS's and browsers etc.) together--it turns out that people ARE seeing > different results. > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Barry Woolgar wrote: > > I just had a look in Opera 9.51 and it fails to show as secure, with the > > message: > > > > "The server attempted to apply security measures, but failed" > > > > If its useful, the encryption protocol used is TLS v1.0 256 bit AES (1024 > > bit DHE_RSA/SHA). I mention this because Opera allows you to change which > > protocol it will try to use for SSL, so mine might be using a different > > protocol (with different requirements on the server) than a standard > > install. Or whatever FF uses. > > Hmm, that is a bit beyond my knowledge of SSL technology. To be > honest, I do not expect much traffic from Opera users on this site. > Perhaps I am wrong, however.