[BNM] [Fwd: www or no www]

[Antony Jones]

I think there is a general consensus that having www is pointless

http://no-www.org/

I think it's quite attractive, but I agree with no-www. It's redundant.

Ant

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:45 +0100, 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!)
>