Indeed it works in both http and https, with or without the www.
When just pasting the link (without tags) the site normally replaces protocol (http or https) and the domain (with or without www) by the one you're currently using.
For embedded links (in the url tag) indeed that replacement is not done; maybe I should add it.
I'd say it is better to use the https version, but with www or without is up to you

There are site alias at the imcdb.org and I have noticed the link is being correspond to which alias is being directed. For example, I have seen posted link using this:

/vehicle_197012-AM-General-M-35-G742.html for https://imcdb.org/vehicle_197012-AM-General-M-35-G742.html

Here are the list of alias I have known:

http://www.imcdb.org
http://imcdb.org
https://www.imcdb.org
https://imcdb.org

What can I use the alias redirect when I want to embedded the imcdb.org link for those whose uses the other alias link?

In case there is a problem with the certificate on the site or its config

I've an idea of the advantages of https connection, especially in security terms. But still doesn't make much sense to don't force https for everyone, including "casual visitors". Why for them https shouldn't work, unless someone is still using Windows 98 or exclusively relies on wifi hotspots?

Because the sensitive info that is transmitted is your username/password, so why force it by default in case someone is browsing as visitor in http-only (in case for some reason https does not work for him).
Once logged in you would stay in https, of course (I should then force the cookie & session to be useable in https only).

Can I say that I don't see the logic behind forcing https only for the login page and not the entire site?

They redirect to HTTPS because I specified that version in the canonical URL in the header.
I should force HTTPS for the login, that's on my to-do list.

So... Both Google and Bing now redirects to https version... Time has finally come to switch on https by default?

I use it and didn't really have problems (though that I do not use it as relaying SMTP)


lighttpd is much lighter than Apache, taking less CPU (this server runs only on an i3), I don't think it would be quickly limited.
In case at some point it is not enough I could still switch to Nginx.
The new site is more complex, but the database is much better designed (using tables for car makes, models, etc. instead of a rather "plain" system as current with simple text field for each role), so it may reduce the load on the SQL database (currently using much more CPU than the web server).

Sounds indeed a bit more tricky than with Apache2. But still relatively easy when compared to some other server configurations: try Postfix if you like headaches

Will lighttpd be enough for the IMCDb, all the more with the (most probably heavier) code of the NextGen? I use it on my computer for "internal" tools and for testing html/php pages and scripts, but feel more "comfortable" when having an Apache for online sites...