@voretaq7, I've put more details as to why it was an incorrect answer here, even at the time it was initially written. Not sure what to do w.r.t. "accepted answer which is wrong"... I certainly don't want to offend you.

@voretaq7, the problem is that the first version was completely wrong: (a) HTTPS has absolutely nothing to do with RFC 2187 and (b) the curl trace has nothing to do with showing any RFC 2187 behaviour either, rather it's about the fact that TLS can support the SNI extension whereas SSLv3 can't (but that trace doesn't show the server name extension anyway). Considering that there is now a correct answer (not quite as highly upvoted), you could delete yours, and obtained the "Disciplined" badge in the process :-)

Certainly the right approach. However, even some mods leave incorrect statements/references in their answers despite it being pointed out in comments :-) I wonder if it's OK to edit their answers for them in this case...

@voretaq7, I realise there is a bias against it here (and I'm not a big fan myself). However, I'd rather see cPanel questions closed as NARQ or NC if applicable, rather than on the basis that they're about cPanel (OT). The purpose of cPanel is clearly to provide basic access to a (limited) number of sysadmin tasks. In comparison, a question about router admin (for example) via its web interface (even if full access is only via CLI) could clearly be on topic. Rather than aiming at a particular product, downvotes and NARQ/NC closure reasons are perfectly good tools to deal with bad questions.

@EightBitTony Not everyone can choose what tools they want to install and which resources are available to them. I wouldn't use cPanel myself, when possible, I'm just saying that cPanel questions are not necessarily off-topic. Some places have requirements for which cPanel may be sufficient (or maybe not, but that could be the subject of a question), and the purpose of cPanel is clearly about sysadmin topics, which may well be done in a professional capacity.

@EightBitTony, I don't think it's a clear cut. If you look at their demo, even the simple "domain owner" interface talks about SSH access, FTP, DNS MX entry, SSL config, cron jobs, DNS zones edition, MySQL/PostgreSQL admin, Apache handlers. Even if it's a simplified interface that doesn't give you full control, all these topics are in the realm of system administration (and not solely "web"). Some answers may require expertise from sysadmins who would know how to perform these tasks without cPanel.

@EightBitTony. If the questions are inherently bad ("Typos and bad grammar are normal and there is often loads of irrelevant information and none of the relevant stuff" as Ladadadada says), they should just be closed as "not constructive" or "not a real question" (when appropriate). I'm just saying that not everyone administers supercomputers or large clusters. I'd argue that even small business hosting can be on-topic. If they "manage computer systems in a professional capacity" using cPanel, fair enough; that's not what I would use, but that doesn't make it off-topic.

There's probably a Linux/CLI culture element in this. cPanel may just be a tool for people who prefer to click, without making them "inferior" :-) Pushed to the extreme, in the Windows world, you could say "If you are limiting yourself to just"what can be done from within Control Panel/MMC you're no longer a sysadmin, you're an application user". (That's true in a number of cases, except that cPanel is server-oriented, not quite the same domain as the average user's Windows Control Panel.)

Presumably, you're referring to this question on SO. Note that SO and SF are different. In addition, downvotes don't come from moderators but from anyone with 125 reputation score or more (I think). I'm not sure what led these users to downvote the question, perhaps the fact that you hadn't realised it wasn't about bash but ksh, others seem to think it's off-topic too.

@JohnGardeniers, yes, I realise using vote counts also defeats my own argument against the other highly upvoted answer that was incorrect. I think we've reached a reasonable compromise anyway...