# Discourse setup script hostname validation for Let's Encrypt **URL:** \ **Category:** Development\ **Created:** [February 17, 2020, 11:50pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-setup-script-hostname-validation-for-lets-encrypt/141911 "2020-02-17T23:50:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 13
**Author:** ![pfaffman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/pfaffman/32/120154_2.png) [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2020, 6:54pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-setup-script-hostname-validation-for-lets-encrypt/141911/13 "2020-02-19T18:54:34Z")
tl;dr: Yes, with the small language tweak that I recommended, this looks good to me. > [@Falco](#): > > I have had zero complaints on this change and since it went live I don’t get the lots of HTTP-only Discourse instances Agreed. Zero complaints! Sounds like a win. > [@Falco](#): > > Oh now I understand your hard reaction to this change as it broke your setup, sorry for that. No! It didn’t. (!) I only sort-of noticed that the sites weren’t coming up before I did the second stage of the install that enables https. And my setup isn’t your responsibility. (Oh, **NOW** it’ll break my script, but not doing the installation before DNS is set up will be better anyway. I haven’t done a non-https installation in at least a year.) The reason that I liked having my script use `discourse-setup` is that it makes extra-special sure that my install customers are getting a [Standard Install](https://meta.discourse.org/t/142537?silent=true), and that when someone says “I did an install and it didn’t work” I can run my script and do exactly what they should have done and say “Well, I just did an install and it worked.” But I don’t think I remember a time in the past 3 years that I found an issue, so perhaps my “testing” isn’t doing anyone any good. --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-setup-script-hostname-validation-for-lets-encrypt/141911)._