The whole thread is confusing then. I definitely didn't read it as hypothetical, especially since:
> What seems obviously not in good faith is that the parent commenter clearly then explains themselves with "we're discussing a hypothetical situation", and you ignored that, and responded as if they hadn't explained it.
No, @agwa replied directly with a very non-hypothetical response: "That's news to you? I informed you last week that Caddy would serve broken certificates in this situation," implying that the conversation is not being carried hypothetically.
The only way I can understand your confusion is if you stopped reading at that point, and completely missed the sentence immediately following the one you just quoted:
> I omitted "would" from my previous comment, but I think it's pretty clear from Francis' comment that we're discussing a hypothetical situation, and neither of us know if any of the 645 affected certificates were requested by Caddy or not.
> What seems obviously not in good faith is that the parent commenter clearly then explains themselves with "we're discussing a hypothetical situation", and you ignored that, and responded as if they hadn't explained it.
No, @agwa replied directly with a very non-hypothetical response: "That's news to you? I informed you last week that Caddy would serve broken certificates in this situation," implying that the conversation is not being carried hypothetically.