Did you mean to ask only us this question? I do not see that you also asked the Network Engineering crowd on their meta.

A better reference would probably be meta.stackoverflow.com/a/276642/1068283

I've added this close reason. Please go remove the old reason and approve the new one.

There is also a length limit for the custom close reason, though I don't recall offhand what it is exactly I think this one is very close to it.

I agree, this question is one that would be asked by a protocol implementer, not normally by a sysadmin (at least not without a real problem and some wireshark output).

The community reviewed your question after you edited it, and the result was not to reopen it. I'm not inclined to reopen it either, as it has to do with Virtualmin, questions about which are not on topic here anyway. But I will change the close reason for it, so that it is more clear.

The deleted questions are from 2014 and 2015 so I think they are too old to have any effect now. This sort of automated block arises mostly from recent questions.

Let's see how far we can bury it this year.

I'm a Linux admin so I didn't vote on your question. I just raised the possibility that this is what people were thinking.

Also, your question is specifically about Windows Insider builds. I suspect several people reacted negatively to your question for exactly this reason.

I thoroughly disagree with this rejection, and with the idea that old posts shouldn't be edited. This particular post is high traffic and relatively timeless; Apache still works this way and probably will for many years to come; the post could well have been posted yesterday with the same content. The edit is quite useful. It should not have been rejected.

This is as much a part of our job as actually renaming the domain, so I don't really have a problem with it.

The reject reason is shown, but I can't tell you why the moderator chose that reason.

meta.stackexchange.com/q/210314/189912