4 ms·
There's a slight advantage to doing it at the registrar because it keeps the hit off your servers. This is assuming of course that http://foo.com/bar http://fo
by crikli 11y ago
There's a slight advantage to doing it at the registrar because it keeps the hit off your servers. This is assuming of course that http://foo.com/bar http://foo.com/bar will get redirected to http://www.foo.com/bar http://www.foo.com/bar rather than just having everything redirected to the http://www.foo.com http://www.foo.com.
Edit: I'm wrong. See tadfisher's comment below.
- tadfisher 11y agoNote that the usual method for doing so (a CNAME on the bare domain) prevents you from adding other resource records (such as MX) on the domain. 1. http://joshstrange.com/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-put-a-cname-record-on-your-root-domain/ http://joshstrange.com/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-put-a-cname-rec...
- crikli 11y agoGreat point. And candidly I never actually do this myself (CNAME on the bare domain), I just point it at the server and let apache/nginx handle the redirect.
- jrapdx3 11y agoThat's interesting. Currently I have 2 different domains at 2 different registrars. In each case I have the bare name, www and other subdomains as "A" records, not CNAME. So it doesn't matter if people use the www prefix or not, since both point to the same IP. And with this configuration I've had no trouble with MX records. If the goal is www/no-www transparency, there are other ways to do it, but using a simple DNS setup seems like the least hassle.
- tadfisher 11y agoThe main reason to redirect to one or the other is to have a canonical URL scheme for search engines.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- geomark 11y agoYes, this is the problem at my registrar if I setup a redirect there. Everything gets redirected to www.foo.com instead of www.foo.com/bar.