[BNM] [Fwd: www or no www]

[Wayne Douglas]

Mat Walker wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	www or no www
> Date: 	Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:54:49 +0100
> From: 	Beth Granter <bethgranter at yahoo.co.uk>
> Reply-To: 	beth at bethgranter.com
> To: 	bnmlist-owner at brightonnewmedia.org
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> My new workplace's website doesn't work without the www 
> (http://www.twentyfirst.com <http://www.twentyfirst.com/> works, 
> http://twentyfirst.com <http://twentyfirst.com/> doesn't) and I've been 
> put in charge of managing a rebuild of the site... so this is something 
> I'd like to change. Our IT team have told me that it is bad practice to 
> not use the www, and because we host the site ourselves and the domain 
> without the www is used for our mailserver (or something - there was 
> some techy reason that apparently we cannot make it work, which I didn't 
> totally get). So if anyone could give me their vote on whether it is 
> good or bad practice to have no www in your URL functioning and why, it 
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Beth
> http://bethgranter.com <http://bethgranter.com/> (no www necessary there!)
>
>   
Sounds a bit sketch to me - it's always good practice to allow people 
every opportunity to access your site - for most people prepending urls 
with www is second nature - they'd get confused if that didn't work and 
probably go elsewhere - but allowing for no www is equally handy imo. 
The mail servers should have their own mail.*, smtp.* etc surely?

My 1p

w://