4 ms·

"Mail servers do not require you to send emails to recipient@mail.domain.com. Likewise, web servers should allow access to their pages though the main domain un

by kree10 15y ago

"Mail servers do not require you to send emails to recipient@mail.domain.com. Likewise, web servers should allow access to their pages though the main domain unless a particular subdomain is required." Sure, email is like this thanks to MX records. We could have the same for web servers by using SRV records ("_http._tcp.example.net" pointing at your "real" web server[s]) but I have no idea how many browsers support looking up SRV before A.

rlpb 15y ago
> I have no idea how many browsers support looking up SRV before A. Firefox doesn't support it, which I think is rather disappointing. The feature request has been around since 1999. Good SRV record support across browsers would assist with many other issues too. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328
perlgeek 15y ago
What else would you want to use the "raw" domain for? Or phrased differently, what's the disadvantage of pointing your main domain to the www server?
- qjz 15y ago
  Imagine SmithCo, a family run business where John Smith is the founder, president and CEO; Jane Smith is the accountant and CFO; James Smith is the head of sales; Judy Smith runs quality control and manufacturing; Jeb Smith is the janitor. Someone calls and says, "I want to talk to Smith!" Who gets the call? At least with SRV records, a framework is available for routing based on context. But without them, it doesn't necessarily make sense to establish a default. In a web-centric environment with a single public facing site with low traffic, it might be useful to assign the top level domain an IP address. In more complex environments, it could create as many or more problems than it solves.
jeza 15y ago
I've been using these records with XMPP servers for some time now and it works quite well. An added benefit is that you can run services on non-standard ports and make this information available via DNS. Of course if the web supported this, it might make it fun for people stuck behind firewalls/proxies run by administrators who think it's a port 80 world out there. In the case of Jabber/XMPP it seems to be universally supported by servers now. Most clients should support it as well. Both are required to support it to be XMPP (RFC 6120/6121) compliant, possibly because there was no standard privileged port that could be allocated.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
snprbob86 15y ago
Yeah, that line stuck out to me as particularly silly because, generally, there is only one endpoint for mail traffic with a unique port per protocol. When it comes to HTTP, there are often numerous services, many of which can not be reasonably called the "world wide web". I guess you could say that the www is the default and codify that to naked domain, but it seems preferable to just redirect from the naked domain to www in order to disambiguate while simultaneously declaring your default.

by kree10 15y ago

rlpb 15y ago

> I have no idea how many browsers support looking up SRV before A. Firefox doesn't support it, which I think is rather disappointing. The feature request has been around since 1999. Good SRV record support across browsers would assist with many other issues too. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14328

perlgeek 15y ago

What else would you want to use the "raw" domain for? Or phrased differently, what's the disadvantage of pointing your main domain to the www server?

qjz 15y ago
Imagine SmithCo, a family run business where John Smith is the founder, president and CEO; Jane Smith is the accountant and CFO; James Smith is the head of sales; Judy Smith runs quality control and manufacturing; Jeb Smith is the janitor. Someone calls and says, "I want to talk to Smith!" Who gets the call? At least with SRV records, a framework is available for routing based on context. But without them, it doesn't necessarily make sense to establish a default. In a web-centric environment with a single public facing site with low traffic, it might be useful to assign the top level domain an IP address. In more complex environments, it could create as many or more problems than it solves.

jeza 15y ago

I've been using these records with XMPP servers for some time now and it works quite well. An added benefit is that you can run services on non-standard ports and make this information available via DNS. Of course if the web supported this, it might make it fun for people stuck behind firewalls/proxies run by administrators who think it's a port 80 world out there. In the case of Jabber/XMPP it seems to be universally supported by servers now. Most clients should support it as well. Both are required to support it to be XMPP (RFC 6120/6121) compliant, possibly because there was no standard privileged port that could be allocated.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

snprbob86 15y ago

Yeah, that line stuck out to me as particularly silly because, generally, there is only one endpoint for mail traffic with a unique port per protocol. When it comes to HTTP, there are often numerous services, many of which can not be reasonably called the "world wide web". I guess you could say that the www is the default and codify that to naked domain, but it seems preferable to just redirect from the naked domain to www in order to disambiguate while simultaneously declaring your default.