__/ [ Gordon Hudson ] on Monday 08 May 2006 07:03 \__
> <xx-google@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> Below are 14 sites, each of which is apparently
>> only accessible via the "www" version of its URL.
>> The left-hand version doesn't work for me, and the
>> right-hand version does work for me. I expect
>> that you would get the same results.
One of my sites *still* falls under this category (since 2001). I suspect
that its (terrible) Web host does not even give the option for that 'www'
umbilical cord to be cut.
>> Some of these are major sites, and it puzzles me
>> that their webmasters haven't tweaked things so
>> that the shorter left-hand URL will work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that some time in the past (maybe 5+
years ago) Yahoo was among these sites...
>> Why might a webmaster not have enabled the
>> shorter (that is, non-"www") version of the URL?
> Its correct.
> Maybe I am too old but we used to have different machines for different
> mail.domain.com was the mail server.
> www.domain.com was the web server.
> ftp.domain.com was the FTP server and was used for more than uploading web
> mymachine.domain.com might be the machine on my desk or one of the hundreds
> of others in the building (in those days it tended to be real routeable IP
> addresses, no NAT, even if you were behind a firewall).
> In other words the domain name was simply that, the domain used to name the
> network and everyone had subdomains from that.
> Its only in the times of ecommerce that people have started making the
> domain name resolve to a web site.
> Its not wrong to do it but its not particularly correct either.
I wonder how this can be resolved, if it all. I am assuming that only the
host can deal with the matter...
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:00pm up 10 days 22:57, 9 users, load average: 1.84, 1.22, 1.01
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine