I agree with Rhys although.. given this original solution in this ticket is way simpler and hasn't been handled in... 3 years... I am unsure if either solution will ever come to light.
Codie, do we know what http implementation they use. If it supports redirects we wouldn't need to even have them modify the LegacyLauncher project and intercept requests if they make a 301 redirect on port 80
Well, to be clear, this reporting system is definitely Microsoft and not Mojang's will as MOJANG have trusted the server owners and staff to regulate chat ourselves FOR YEARS. But yes, I agree, if the web team can add extra "authentication-like" things like reporting and punishments based on reports which is way more complex than a 301 redirect then they should be able to do one with ease and are being told not to or choosing not to.
Based on your wording, do the web team not interact with the public at all? And do the web team have a board like Trello or do they have no Todo list and often forget things? As this sounds like a case of bad communication between departments if they keep pushing back a 301 HTTP Permanent Redirect off for years, for any normal web server software, it is a single line to setup a 301 permanent redirect and if you guys are using java servlets, it will very by framework, just wish we had a direct channel to the web team as I'd like to understand the struggle they are facing, perhaps, like in most companies, they are forced to work with awful legacy code that somehow doesn't enable them to easily do 301's or perhaps Mojang doesn't run or have control of minecraft.net website since microsoft took over so they are playing a round robin with you, web team and microsoft web team. If there are more details that you can divulge it would be much appreciated to help us understand the 3 year struggle.
Yeah, unfortunately, at the end of the day, microsoft cares about profits, even though this is simple fix, they'd rather spend those 30 seconds on something that will make them more profit
Yeah even though it won't affect logins, I think it's more of an ethical issue and I just don't like to support and use services of a huge anti-consumer company (Microsoft) no doubt this was Microsoft pushing their influence of owning Mojang to make this change, no other reason for it but to upset the consumers (The improved security argument is kind of weak, never heard of any issues with security due to Mojang/Minecraft and it's not hard to add the security features Microsoft offers like 2FA)
I'm happy to hear there is a new timeline but why has it taken so long (a little over 2 years), like if you use nginx, it's ~5 lines, like heck, you could hire me to do it for free and I'd get it done in 5 minutes lmao
My hunch has always been and with each passing version it becomes more and more obvious, they are trying to make java edition so undesirable or non profitable to get servers and players to switch to bedrock i.e micro(soft) transaction Minecraft, the first update where Microsoft got full control was 1.9 (1.8 was in the works and probably mostly done before Microsoft got ownership) which was the update that tried to split the PvP and normal Minecraft community in half and have made no effort to try to remedy that combat change (they could literally add a boolean in server.properties for new combat to be enabled but they don't). Not to mention any version past 1.12.2 really isn't viable for big networks (as the performance is so bad, it's essential to use paper and follow the server optimization guide just to make a simple private server playable on the latest version(s)). So wish I could say I'm surprised they aren't doing this or anything that actually benefits the java community but they've been going in this direction for a while sadly (if only Notch didn't feel like all his work would be overshadowed by Minecraft and that he'd be defined ad the Minecraft guy (I believe that was one of the reasons he left he said in one of his interview)).
I have looked over the pull request, the code looks good, I honestly do hope it gets merged (although it is worrying this was PR'd a year ago and that the repo looks abandoned (6 years ago was last commit))