Everyone,

I'm in a quandary.

I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought 
it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same 
IP as just "grc.com".  Our web server, therefore, would answer the 
call from any subdomain -- real, imagined, fictitious, gibberish, 
or "www".  And I've never thought of us as "www.grc.com" -- just 
"grc.com". It's shorter, minimal, unique, sufficient.

But one side effect of this "anything goes" domain name prefixing 
is that typos have crept into external links to us.  Out logs show 
things like "ww.grc.com", "wwww.grc.com", "leaktest.grc.com", and 
many things even more bizarre.

So some time ago I added some constraint filtering to incoming 
requests.  If the incoming URL was not requesting either 
"www.grc.com" or just "grc.com", the user's browser would be 
redirected to just "grc.com".  But "www.grc.com" was allowed to 
stand.

This cleaned things up a lot, since external links people were 
creating from copying their browser's URL would no longer 
propagate typos.  But now I'm left with the quandary for the next 
round of "tightening up" ... to keep or flush the "www." prefix??

Do I enforce a redirect FOR the use of "www." or just for 
"grc.com".  The reason this matters, aside from just feeling 
right, is that as I start thinking about marketing SpinRite v6.0, 
I'd like to have a uniform domain name for everyone to use in 
their URLs.  Until now I have been FORCING myself to use the 
"www." prefix, under the feeling that it's correct and expected.

But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's 
minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think, 
everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that, 
should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?

Google currently has a bias toward the "www" prefix.  It shows 
about 760 incoming links to us aimed at "www.grc.com" as opposed 
to 556 for just "grc.com".  Query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awww.grc.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Agrc.com

But on the other hand, the Google Toolbar appears to strongly 
favor the NON www prefix for most of our page ranks.

page rank 7 for http://grc.com/default.htm
page rank 6 for http://www.grc.com/default.htm

.... which I think means that higher-ranks pages are using 
"grc.com" rather than "www.grc.com".

>----------------------------------------------------------------

So what do you guys think?

Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www) 
would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no 
one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL 
shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen, 
all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external 
links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other 
format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that 
process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the 
sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could 
change them.)

So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

In grc.news Steve Gibson wrote:

> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.

Love that word.  Hate being in one.  :-)  

> So what do you guys think?
[ ]

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I think just grc.com (unless you expect sub-domains) and any traffic 
is directed by protocol as/if needed.  But "www" must be preserved as 
a means of access "indefinitely" (historically?).  All links and 
URL/URIs should be "grc.com" to visitors and robots.

JMO and not prepared to argue the points on merits at all.  <G>

-- 
GRC Newsgroups/Guides:  http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
SpinRite 6.0  Now available! - http://www.grc.com/
Oficial SpinRite Support via email:  support [at] grc.com

Steve Gibson wrote:

> 
> So what do you guys think?
> 
> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www) 
> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no 
> one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL 
> shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen, 
> all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external 
> links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other 
> format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that 
> process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the 
> sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could 
> change them.)
> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 

The www.grc.com comes across on my news client as a link,
but grc.com doesn't. I'd prefer to see a link ;)

-- 
Le Flake
from deepest, darkest Qu�bec

Steve Gibson wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.
> 

Well I like just grc.com as well, but then I'm a techie type who knows 
that a web server can be called just about anything.  The average user 
probably thinks that a web site *must* start with www and will type it 
into a browsers without thinking.  www has become the standard for http 
and it could be confusing to users if a link doesn't start with it.  So 
reluctantly I have to vote for www.grc.com

> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 

The above is a sign of what I'm talking about.  In my news reader 
(Thunderbird).  www.grc.com gets turned into a clickable http link where 
as grc.com does not.

In grc.news.feedback sparky wrote:

> Steve Gibson wrote:
[ ]

>  www has become
> the standard for http and it could be confusing to users if a link
> doesn't start with it.  So reluctantly I have to vote for
> www.grc.com 

But is that "www" not _less_ true today than in years past?  (I don't 
actually know.)

>> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
 
> The above is a sign of what I'm talking about.  In my news reader 
> (Thunderbird).  www.grc.com gets turned into a clickable http link
> where as grc.com does not.

You (and La Flake) make a great point.  In checking Xnews I find the 
"www.grc.com" _is_ recognized and "grc.com" is not.  Or rather, Xnews 
thinks it is an executable.  Probably tweak-able knowing Xnews.  

But this is an issue of client newsreaders interpreting text is it 
not?  Do any HTTP Browsers fail to resolve "grc.com"?

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> So what do you guys think?

The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away from the 
www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com

-- 

Terry Webb ///

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Le Flake wrote ...

> The www.grc.com comes across on my news client as a link,
> but grc.com doesn't. I'd prefer to see a link ;)

How about http://grc.com/ ? :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

I have to agree with Sparky. Never underestimate how many brain-dead 
users (BDUs) are out there. www is expected by the average BDU.

This also allows you to swing different services to different servers on 
the fly. In the future if you ever needed to put http on a separate 
server from mail you can just point www to the new server. I do this 
with my RealNetworks URIs. Right now media.example.com and 
www.example.com point to the same server. If and when the media content 
goes into overload I can swing that content to a dedicated server just 
by changing the DNS entry. I also point my mail to mail.example.com.

To me, even though its not "minimalist, short, sweet" it does keep 
things tidy and neat.

my 2 cents
-Gumby

In message <MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1>, Steve Gibson 
<support@grc.com> kicked in with
>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I prefer the latter. Less is more!
-- 
Fungus
[without fungi, life would be miserable]

Mark V wrote:

> In grc.news.feedback sparky wrote:
> 
> 
>>Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> [ ]
> 
> 
>> www has become
>>the standard for http and it could be confusing to users if a link
>>doesn't start with it.  So reluctantly I have to vote for
>>www.grc.com 
> 
> 
> But is that "www" not _less_ true today than in years past?  (I don't 
> actually know.)
> 

Some people have noted a trend away from using www but I can't say that 
I have and there can't be many sites that don't redirect www to whatever 
name they are using and that's my point www in the minds of the public 
means "web site" and to me it just seems logical to do what the public 
expect, however much I prefer just grc.com

> 
>>>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
>  
> 
>>The above is a sign of what I'm talking about.  In my news reader 
>>(Thunderbird).  www.grc.com gets turned into a clickable http link
>>where as grc.com does not.
> 

> You (and La Flake) make a great point.  In checking Xnews I find the 
> "www.grc.com" _is_ recognized and "grc.com" is not.  Or rather, Xnews 
> thinks it is an executable.  Probably tweak-able knowing Xnews.  
> 
> But this is an issue of client newsreaders interpreting text is it 
> not?  Do any HTTP Browsers fail to resolve "grc.com"?
> 

Again my point is that what news readers and email clients do with plain 
text is an indication of what the public expects - of course 
http://grc.com becomes a link when displayed in Thunderbird as http 
tells the client that it's a link, but the fact that www *also* makes 
that client display a clickable link shows just how strongly it has 
become associated with "web sites".

Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:49:22 -0700  Steve Gibson wrote:

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

If a link is highlighted by an editor, it is often done by checking
not only for 'http://' but also for the prefix 'www.' So in the above
citation my newsrader Forte Agent highlights, accepts doubleclicks
etc. for "www.grc.com" but not for "grc.com". 

A small additional advantage for 'www.'

Hans

[for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]

> The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away
> from the www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com

Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.  
But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and 
"pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous 
noise.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Although I like just the grc.com, I'm constantly telling people to try
grc.com and they always type in www.

'Regular' users like the www because they assume that is what it is no
matter whay you tell them.

Whatever your mood...

FWIW
-- 
Rudy

[for the unabridged version, see Gumby's post above]

> I have to agree with Sparky. Never underestimate how many brain-dead 
> users (BDUs) are out there. www is expected by the average BDU.

Ah ... but "www.grc.com" would still *always* be accepted.
It would just be nicely converted into the shorter "grc.com".


> This also allows you to swing different services to different
> servers on the fly. In the future if you ever needed to put http
> on a separate server from mail you can just point www to the new
> server. I do this with my RealNetworks URIs. Right now
> media.example.com and www.example.com point to the same server.
> If and when the media content goes into overload I can swing that
> content to a dedicated server just by changing the DNS entry. I
> also point my mail to mail.example.com.

Well, we do that now already.  I have "news.grc.com" for news, 
"media.grc.com" for large media files, "nanoprobe.grc.com" for our 
R&D web-tech server, and so forth.

But if "www." were to become the "enforced" domain, then the 
shorter root domain of grc.com would be essentially wasted.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Mark V's post above]

> I think just grc.com (unless you expect sub-domains) and any
> traffic is directed by protocol as/if needed.

We do run a number of subdomains now, without trouble ...

"news.grc.com"
"media.grc.com"
"nanoprobe.grc.com"

So there's no conflict with those and just "grc.com" for the
MOST popular service and server of all ... our web server.


> But "www" must be preserved as a means of access "indefinitely"
> (historically?).  All links and URL/URIs should be "grc.com" to
> visitors and robots.

Of course.  "www" would ALWAYS also take the user to our server, 
it would simply redirect quickly to strip the "www" and leave them 
with just "grc.com".

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:05:34 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
wrote:

>"news.grc.com"
>"media.grc.com"
>"nanoprobe.grc.com"
>
Yes but Joe public almost never uses those.
We do.

If it were me I'd go with 'back compatable' but then again I miss
vinyl LP's.

-- 
Rudy

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news,grc.news.feedback, I heard Steve
Gibson mention:

[...]
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

My personal preference would be just "grc.com", but as others point
out, www.grc.com is handled better by news clients (and mail clients),
and is also more the standard that the "unwashed masses" have come to
expect. I've tried avoiding "www" with a few new commercial domains
over the past year or so, and in every case ended up adding it based
on customer requests and complaints.

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

[for the unabridged version, see sparky's post above]

> Well I like just grc.com as well, but then I'm a techie type
> who knows that a web server can be called just about anything.
> The average user probably thinks that a web site *must* start
> with www and will type it into a browsers without thinking.

Right.  And that would work for them -- always -- to get them
to us.  But the unnecessary "www" would be stripped upon entry.

> www has become the standard for http and it could be confusing
> to users if a link doesn't start with it.  So reluctantly I have
> to vote for www.grc.com

Terry made the (I think excellent) point that "www" has BEEN the 
historical standard, but that it's beginning to fade as being 
unnecessary.

The real question, I suppose, is summed up by the second art of 
your sentence above: Would the LACK of a "www" confuse anyone?

> > So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> The above is a sign of what I'm talking about.  In my news
> reader (Thunderbird).  www.grc.com gets turned into a clickable
> http link where as grc.com does not.

Good point, same with Gravity, but presumably because the "www." 
is able to (incorrectly BTW, but probably safely) assume a 
protocol, whereas the right way is http://grc.com which makes the 
protocol explicit.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Fungus's post above]

> >So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> I prefer the latter. Less is more!

.... or as SR6's new slogan goes ... "It Works"

:)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.  
> But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and 
> "pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous 
> noise.

"http://" has pretty much completely disappeared from advertisements.

The "www." is taking longer, but I think eventually it will, too, 
vanish.

Just my observations.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.
> 
> I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought
> it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same
> IP as just "grc.com".  


[snip]
> 
> So what do you guys think?
> 

I always thought the www was sort of affected and a waste of
typing.  I always use my domain names on host servers but ask for
www.domain name as an alias.

[snip]
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

-- Gerry --

Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]
>
>> The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away
>> from the www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com
>
> Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.
> But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and
> "pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous
> noise.

If I type chron.com in IE's address bar, I am presented with
http://chron.com/.  If I type grc.com, I get http://grc.com/.  If I type
cnn.com I get http://www.cnn.com/.  If I type micrsoft.com I get
http://www.microsoft.com/.  I was not aware of a move away from the www, but
if that is the case, I would do the same thing.

-- 
Robert
GRC newsgroup tips - http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Privacy and Security - http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm

Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

I have for sometime preferred the removal of the redundant www in URLs.

grc.com for me, please.

Book

In article <MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1> Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think,
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that,
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?
> 
I don't know what the protocol for a web server might be, so my WAG is
that you should go with your gut feeling and keep "grc.com."

Jane and Joe Sixpack probably don't care.  Modern s/w is wonderful. 
If the name.suffix doesn't have the "www" prefix when s/he types it
into the browser but requires the prefix the browser will add it.  If
the name.suffix does not require a prefix the browser will add the
http:// protocol and take the user there without question. 
Furthermore, "grc.com" and "cox-internet.com" both take the user to
the respective sites either with or without the "www."  Thus my vote
goes toward keeping grc.com.

With the official release of SR6 Google will just have to get used to
it again. :)

-- 
Alan
The universal principle of energy:
Energy has an objective, independent, physical existence and exists 
in the absence of matter, but matter is entirely dependent upon
energy and cannot exist in the absence of energy.  - A.T. Williams
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/book/holoprt2-1.htm >

In article Hans says...

> Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:49:22 -0700  Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> > So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> If a link is highlighted by an editor, it is often done by checking
> not only for 'http://' but also for the prefix 'www.' So in the above
> citation my newsrader Forte Agent highlights, accepts doubleclicks
> etc. for "www.grc.com" but not for "grc.com". 
> 
> A small additional advantage for 'www.'
> 
> Hans

Ditto Gravity newsreader!

Ash

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:49:22 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>So what do you guys think?
>
[snip]
>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????


Watch out for the internet police. It may be illegal to refer to pages
located on your non-WWW "grc.com" server as "web" pages! :)


-- 
George Barker

Almost 50% of all nuclear power plants reported to have below average safety and security rating.

Steve Gibson wrote:

> I'm in a quandary.
[...]
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I really don't know. But it doesent make a difference to the mainstream
browsers out there. If you type "grc + ENTER" in Mozilla (or IE, I
think) it is automagicly expanded into "http://www.grc.com". So the lazy
folk, like me, will end up at the "www."-address.

I think it is only a matter of how do you like to organize your domain.

Carsten

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> The real question, I suppose, is summed up by the second art of 
> your sentence above: Would the LACK of a "www" confuse anyone?

I don't think it would confuse the vast majority; as someone noted, 
users tend to automatically type "www." when manually entering URL's.  I 
have observed this, even though I say the "www." isn't needed, they type 
it anyway. <g>


-- 

Terry Webb ///

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Robert Wycoff wrote ...

> If I type micrsoft.com I get http://www.microsoft.com/.

That cinches it for me, Microsoft is always behind the curve. ;)

On their home page, in the upper-left corner it says "Microsoft.com 
Home", so, they're getting there.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
> SNIP

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I vote grc.com

I reason that the use of www is superfluous in almost all cases.
It is assumed by many browsers automatically.
Reading from right to left, which is I believe the hierarchically correct
way what does www contribute. I suggest nothing.
Now if there were ever to be a different starting bit say IMS for IMage
Streaming then this might be the wrong choice. Just think you might in
future have a whole new way of conducting business with a company - an image
avatar or similar which you 'converse' with using the IMage Streaming access
point.


--
Alan Cameron

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Steve Gibson
mention:

> [for the unabridged version, see Gumby's post above]
> 
>> I have to agree with Sparky. Never underestimate how many brain-dead 
>> users (BDUs) are out there. www is expected by the average BDU.
> 
> Ah ... but "www.grc.com" would still *always* be accepted.
> It would just be nicely converted into the shorter "grc.com".

If that's the case, then I think "grc.com" is just fine as the
"standard". As long as the "BDU's" can blithely type in "www" without
any ill effect, all is well... 

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see sparky's post above]
> 
> 
>>Well I like just grc.com as well, but then I'm a techie type
>>who knows that a web server can be called just about anything.
>>The average user probably thinks that a web site *must* start
>>with www and will type it into a browsers without thinking.
> 
> 
> Right.  And that would work for them -- always -- to get them
> to us.  But the unnecessary "www" would be stripped upon entry.
> 

Yes, understood.

>>www has become the standard for http and it could be confusing
>>to users if a link doesn't start with it.  So reluctantly I have
>>to vote for www.grc.com
> 
> 
> Terry made the (I think excellent) point that "www" has BEEN the 
> historical standard, but that it's beginning to fade as being 
> unnecessary.
> 

Well, maybe it is for techie sites and as far as "main stream" America 
is concerned I can't comment, living as I do in the UK.  Here www is the 
standard and doesn't look like changing.

I went round a few of the consumer web sites both for here and in the 
States to see what they do.  Most redirect to www.domain.com (or co.uk) 
a few do not, these are mainly more technical sites like dell.com and 
sony.com but sites the do leave the domain unchanged also leave 
www.domain.com unchanged to (ie *don't* redirect to just domain.com).

> The real question, I suppose, is summed up by the second art of 
> your sentence above: Would the LACK of a "www" confuse anyone?
> 

Who can say, but using www.grc.com won't confuse anyone.

I'm fighting against the tide here and also *my* inclination.  I think 
there are too many techie people reading these groups to get a balanced 
view on this topic.  Go out into the street and ask what 'http://' means 
to people and what 'www' means to them and see what results you get.

I think many non tech users assume that all sites start with a
www.something.com  I know I try the www first because I think most companies
use that form.


I think the final decision makes no difference as long as all non prefered
forms are translated into the "correct" form.


just my thoughts

In message <MPG.1b3e3df711e3b72598c02b@10.1.0.1>, Steve Gibson 
<support@grc.com> kicked in with
>[for the unabridged version, see Fungus's post above]
>
>> >So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>>
>> I prefer the latter. Less is more!
>
>... or as SR6's new slogan goes ... "It Works"

Yep! 8-)

-- 
Fungus
[without fungi, life would be miserable]

In grc.news.feedback sparky wrote:

> Mark V wrote:
> 
>> In grc.news.feedback sparky wrote:

>>>the standard for http and it could be confusing to users if a
>>>link doesn't start with it.  So reluctantly I have to vote for
>>>www.grc.com 
 
>> But is that "www" not _less_ true today than in years past?  (I
>> don't actually know.)
 
> Some people have noted a trend away from using www but I can't say
> that I have and there can't be many sites that don't redirect www
> to whatever name they are using and that's my point www in the
> minds of the public means "web site" and to me it just seems
> logical to do what the public expect, however much I prefer just
> grc.com 
[ ]

>> But this is an issue of client newsreaders interpreting text is
>> it not?  Do any HTTP Browsers fail to resolve "grc.com"?
>> 
> 
> Again my point is that what news readers and email clients do with
> plain text is an indication of what the public expects - of course
> http://grc.com becomes a link when displayed in Thunderbird as
> http tells the client that it's a link, but the fact that www
> *also* makes that client display a clickable link shows just how
> strongly it has become associated with "web sites".

Or is it _legacy_ sites?  Or is it "everybody has a DNS record for 
WWW no matter what else."?  <G>

I actually now believe that so long as DNS accepts "www.grc.com" and 
gets it where it needs to be that "the public" will notice little and 
care less.  Transparency for the end-user.  It seems GRC internal 
organization and facility should be Steve's best guide.  I do agree 
that _uniformity_ should be highly desired, especially in light of 
search engines ending up all with either "grc.com" or "www.grc.com" 
and not mixed.

OTOH your observation even extends to the command line (W2K) 
apparently.
  C:\TEMP>start "" http://grc.com

  C:\TEMP>start "" www.grc.com

  C:\TEMP>start "" grc.com
  The system cannot find the file grc.com.

<G>

[for the unabridged version, see Mark V's post above]

It's interesting ... but though I didn't expect it, this 
interesting discussion IS winding up with me seeing more
benefit to "www.grc.com" than I did before.

If I had to choose between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com",
the simpler "www.grc.com" wins.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see sparky's post above]

> I'm fighting against the tide here and also *my* inclination.

But I also think that your arguments are compelling.  As I wrote 
above after reading your interchange with Mark V, if it were a 
choice between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com" ... the "www" 
wins in my book.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
sparky wrote ...

> Well, maybe it is for techie sites and as far as "main stream" America 
> is concerned I can't comment, living as I do in the UK.  Here www is the 
> standard and doesn't look like changing.

What about printed media?  I just looked at my most recent Wal*Mart 
receipt.  At the bottom it says "Send Dad great Gadgets from 
Walmart.com!".

-- 

Terry Webb ///

[for the unabridged version, see Don Voorhees's post above]

> > Ah ... but "www.grc.com" would still *always* be accepted.
> > It would just be nicely converted into the shorter "grc.com".
> 
> If that's the case, then I think "grc.com" is just fine as the
> "standard". As long as the "BDU's" can blithely type in "www"
> without any ill effect, all is well... 

Right.

Although the issue of external inbound link homogeneity is a key 
factor as well.

What do we think other more professional web masters would be 
using for links into GRC?  For some reason "grc.com" is showing
a higher Google page rank than "www.grc.com" ... but there are 
MORE of the "www.grc.com" links than just grc.com.

If anyone's browser ACCEPTED the www.grc.com, but always 
transmuted it into just "grc.com", I suppose THAT's what 
webmasters would "copy" when linking to us from their pages??

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> But I also think that your arguments are compelling.  As I wrote 
> above after reading your interchange with Mark V, if it were a 
> choice between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com" ... the "www" 
> wins in my book.

www.grc.com is visually balanced.  Actually, I don't think there's 
really much difference, other than personal preference.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Terry L. Webb wrote:

> 
> What about printed media?  I just looked at my most recent Wal*Mart 
> receipt.  At the bottom it says "Send Dad great Gadgets from 
> Walmart.com!".
> 

yes, but type walmart.com into your browser and you are redirected to 
www.walmart.com ;)

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
sparky wrote ...

> yes, but type walmart.com into your browser and you are redirected to 
> www.walmart.com ;)

Yes, I observed that, too. ;)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

In grc.news.feedback Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see sparky's post above]
> 
>> I'm fighting against the tide here and also *my* inclination.
> 
> But I also think that your arguments are compelling.  As I wrote 
> above after reading your interchange with Mark V, if it were a 
> choice between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com" ... the "www" 
> wins in my book.

Okay.  That is no contest for "average" humans.  <G>
It seems software favors "www" prefixes as well in many cases.
I _like_ lean clean "grc.com" (as does Sparky and several other 
"techie" posters), but the preponderence of usability seems to conclude  
that "www.grc.com" is the best practical choice at this time.

This has been facinating.  Are we (frequenters of technical groups) out 
of touch with the masses (software and wetware)? 

  dub-dub-dub  :-)

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Terry L. Webb wrote ...

> What about printed media?  I just looked at my most recent Wal*Mart 
> receipt.  At the bottom it says "Send Dad great Gadgets from 
> Walmart.com!".

From soft drink cans: dietrite.com and www.coke.com

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Hi Steve,

> So what do you guys think?

FWIW, of the 2,228 links we currently have on List of Lists,
1,775 use WWW.  That's about 80%.

While I haven't kept track, of the 100 or more sites I visit
every day I believe the vast majority also use WWW.

Just some data points for your consideration.  My sense is that
_most_ people are familiar with, and feel comfortable with WWW.

-- 
___
Ted

In article <Xns950DB37BEDC5Cz9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254> Mark V wrote:
> 
> Okay.  That is no contest for "average" humans.  <G>
> It seems software favors "www" prefixes as well in many cases.
> I _like_ lean clean "grc.com" (as does Sparky and several other
> "techie" posters), but the preponderence of usability seems to conclude
> that "www.grc.com" is the best practical choice at this time.
> 
What he said. :)

> This has been facinating.  Are we (frequenters of technical groups) out
> of touch with the masses (software and wetware)?
> 
Indubitably. ;)

-- 
Alan
The universal principle of energy:
Energy has an objective, independent, physical existence and exists 
in the absence of matter, but matter is entirely dependent upon
energy and cannot exist in the absence of energy.  - A.T. Williams
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/book/holoprt2-1.htm >

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Steve Gibson
mention:

> [for the unabridged version, see Don Voorhees's post above]
> 
>>> Ah ... but "www.grc.com" would still *always* be accepted.
>>> It would just be nicely converted into the shorter "grc.com".
>> 
>> If that's the case, then I think "grc.com" is just fine as the
>> "standard". As long as the "BDU's" can blithely type in "www"
>> without any ill effect, all is well... 
> 
> Right.
> 
> Although the issue of external inbound link homogeneity is a key 
> factor as well.

True, and the legacy links may be around for quite sometime.

> What do we think other more professional web masters would be 
> using for links into GRC?  For some reason "grc.com" is showing
> a higher Google page rank than "www.grc.com" ... but there are 
> MORE of the "www.grc.com" links than just grc.com.
> 
> If anyone's browser ACCEPTED the www.grc.com, but always 
> transmuted it into just "grc.com", I suppose THAT's what 
> webmasters would "copy" when linking to us from their pages??

For the most part, I think if you are promoting the "grc.com" link
with Fred Langa, Leo, etc., the tendency will be for the pro's to
follow that lead. As the "dump www" movement gains momentum, the
others will follow also, with the legacy links eventually flushing
out. 

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote:

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

/paste

Path: news.grc.com!.
From: kayodeok <news4kayode@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: grc.linkfarm
Subject: No More www. in Your URI
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:28:59 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: kayodeok
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <Xns950DE4BAE70A7news4kayode@204.1.226.254>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archive: no
X-No-Archive: yes
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Original-Reader: 67.10.38.170
Xref: news.grc.com grc.linkfarm:4021

No More www. in Your URI
http://mathibus.com/archives/2004/06/08/redirects/

www. is deprecated
http://no-www.org/

--/
Kayode Okeyode
http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
http://www.kayodeok.btinternet.co.uk/favorites/webdesign.htm

/end paste


-- 
Robert
GRC newsgroup tips - http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Privacy and Security - http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm

Steve - 

A simple test:

Click Start, then Run on your favorite flavor of Windows.

Type grc.com in the window and click Ok and see what happens.  Then,
type www.grc.com and click Ok and see what happens.  I am in full
agreement that the "www" is really useless at this point, BUT...
so much code has that "www" tag in them that it would be impossible
to do without.

So, my vote is for "www.grc.com".

Larry





On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:49:22 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
wrote:

>Everyone,
>
>I'm in a quandary.
>

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think,
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.

It is minimalist and short, but it relies on a non-strict naming system
where the server is determined by the traffic type.  This seems less
precise.

Everyone does think of grc.com as the domain where all the grc servers live
and probably they also think that the webserver is named www.

>  But, despite that,
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?
>

Not necessarily www, but I think the web server should have a name in the
grc.com domain.  It seems more correct to name the server and a bit
unfinished to leave it unnamed.

>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>

More web servers are named www than anything else so I think it would be the
best choice.  Plain grc.com should be accepted and redirect to the webserver
if it looks like web traffic.  I think this is the more satisfying solution
especially if you ever need to add another webserver on the same box at the
same ip.

[for the unabridged version, see Robert Wycoff's post above]

> No More www. in Your URI
> http://mathibus.com/archives/2004/06/08/redirects/
> 
> www. is deprecated
> http://no-www.org/

Wow Robert ... a real "no stinkin' www's" movement.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message =
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...

<snip>

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
=20
> --=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Telephone books drop the www. in domain names to save space in the =
listing.

A HTML port 80 request should go to the default web server at =
www.grc.com
A newsgroup request should go to the default news server at news.grc.com
A HTTPS request should go to the default https://sercure.grc.com

If you run just ONE server, it can be named grc.com for http://grc.com
dropping the www. sub domain for HTML pages.

The main domain name is the IP address and the
sub domains are the port numbers for the IP address

You can change the default port numbers for named sub domains :-)
but not easy to do for the main domain name. :-(
You are stuck with the default port numbers for the main domain name. =
:-(

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:25:52 +0200, Carsten Hiller
<Carsten.Hiller@arcormail.de> wrote:

>I really don't know. But it doesent make a difference to the mainstream
>browsers out there. If you type "grc + ENTER" in Mozilla (or IE, I
>think) it is automagicly expanded into "http://www.grc.com". So the lazy
>folk, like me, will end up at the "www."-address.
>
>I think it is only a matter of how do you like to organize your domain.
>
>Carsten

Not so in my IE 6.0...If I type just "grc" it does a Google search for
grc and shows links for other sites as well.

Larry

[for the unabridged version, see Mark V's post above]

> This has been fascinating.

Yes, it has been.  And I think that the "www" is emerging as the 
correct choice.  This is handy, also, since I just spent $1600 on 
a secure certificate for it (is THAT not highway robbery? !!!)

.... and also since I HAVE been attempting to reschool myself 
around always using the "www" prefix.

So I think the way it will "wash" will be like the "WalMart" 
example.  In common discussion we'll always just be "grc.com",
but links and more "formal" references will be "www.grc.com"

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Larry's post above]

> So, my vote is for "www.grc.com".

Yep.  That seems to be the way this has settled out.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
>
> So what do you guys think?
>

www.grc.com

MP

Steve Gibson wrote:

> Do I enforce a redirect FOR the use of "www." or just for 
> "grc.com".  The reason this matters, aside from just feeling 
> right, is that as I start thinking about marketing SpinRite v6.0, 
> I'd like to have a uniform domain name for everyone to use in 
> their URLs.  Until now I have been FORCING myself to use the 
> "www." prefix, under the feeling that it's correct and expected.

However it resolves (I have no preference), remember that Netscape will 
translate 'grc' into 'http://www.grc.com/'. I'd not be surprised if MSIE 
added that feature (I don't think it's there yet) since it is a 
convenience for those not using Favorites and not wanting to type in the 
whole URL.

Mike
-- 
mrichter@cpl.net
http://www.mrichter.com/

www.grc.com

www..... is the more common way of referring to web sites.




"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.
>
> I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought
> it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same
> IP as just "grc.com".  Our web server, therefore, would answer the
> call from any subdomain -- real, imagined, fictitious, gibberish,
> or "www".  And I've never thought of us as "www.grc.com" -- just
> "grc.com". It's shorter, minimal, unique, sufficient.

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> And I think that the "www" is emerging as the 
> correct choice.  This is handy, also, since I just spent $1600 on 
> a secure certificate for it (is THAT not highway robbery? !!!)

You have to get your money's worth! <g>  It'll be a long time before 
"www." is truly deprecated, if it ever is.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote:

>... But now I'm left with the quandary for the next 
>round of "tightening up" ... to keep or flush the "www." prefix??
....
>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I do think it's a good idea to use just one or the other.

Like you, I have a personal preference for the simpler, shorter
"grc.com".  The "www" is redundant nowadays.  It made sense in the early
Net days.  No longer.

Meanwhile, I have no concern whatsoever for the sweeping declaration
that "www." is deprecated.  Nobody should feel _forced_ to drop the
prefix.  The Web will still work just fine.

I vaguely recall that you engaged in some tinkering with/without the
"www" some months back (in page content, not DNS?), and that it
(momentarily?) had a negative impact on GRC's Google listings.  If the
change to no-www is going to affect your Google rank, perhaps it's not
the best idea, for the time being.

On the other hand, maybe now is the time to get it over with, since the
promotion of SR6 is likely to create a whole new "web" of links to GRC;
and it seems a good idea for them to be totally consistent.

pchelp

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
pchelp wrote ...

>  If the
> change to no-www is going to affect your Google rank, perhaps it's not
> the best idea, for the time being.

Interestingly, I tried Amazon, Microsoft, and Yahoo; with and without 
"www.", and Google shows the exact same number of links both ways.  
There must be some way to make Google rank it that way.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Steve Gibson said in:<news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1>:
> [...]  But now I'm left with the quandary for the next 
> round of "tightening up" ... to keep or flush the "www." prefix??
> 
> Do I enforce a redirect FOR the use of "www." or just for 
> "grc.com".  The reason this matters, aside from just feeling 
> right, is that as I start thinking about marketing SpinRite v6.0, 
> I'd like to have a uniform domain name for everyone to use in 
> their URLs.  Until now I have been FORCING myself to use the 
> "www." prefix, under the feeling that it's correct and expected.
> 
> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's 
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think, 
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  

Most people, I suspect, think about "GRC", just as they do "Amazon"
or "Google".

> But, despite that, 
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?
> 
> Google currently has a bias toward the "www" prefix.  It shows 
> about 760 incoming links to us aimed at "www.grc.com" as opposed 
> to 556 for just "grc.com".  

Already.

> But on the other hand, the Google Toolbar appears to strongly 
> favor the NON www prefix for most of our page ranks.
> 
> page rank 7 for http://grc.com/default.htm
> page rank 6 for http://www.grc.com/default.htm

The Toolbar is notoriously vague and variable, and the PageRank is
based on a lot of old/historic links to boot (www.grc.com is
relatively new, after all, so the only-one-less Rank tends to
suggest is has more momentum). And I gather there may be news on the
SpinRite front which is likely to refresh many people's links for
the first time in some years ...

> ... which I think means that higher-ranks pages are using 
> "grc.com" rather than "www.grc.com".

For now.

> So what do you guys think?
> 
> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www) 
> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no 
> one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL 
> shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen, 
> all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external 
> links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other 
> format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that 
> process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the 
> sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could 
> change them.)
> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

1. Pick one and stick to it (er, as is the point of your post ;)

2. Google and the other engines will follow where you lead (perhaps
after some initial bumpiness). For that purpose, you only need
funnel them into one prefix, not diluted across many: which one of
the two is google-neutral in all but the very short term.

3. GRC is about helping ordinary people and serving ordinary
customers. Let the W3C evangelise or promote or deprecate one style
or the other, because that's what they're about.

4. Most ordinary people, and many of their common Net tools
(browsers, news, email, etc), expect www.grc.com, and find that
easier to navigate to, and link to, and tell other ordinary people
about ("go to GRC to test your shields"; and even if they say "go to
grc.com to test your shields", people think they *mean*
www.grc.com).


So ... www.grc.com ... in my book, overwhelmingly. 

grc.com is for techies and geeks (like us, who are capable of
grokking either without breaking sweat). 

www.grc.com is for ordinary people: your main audience (who don't
even read your purchase pages ;).

-- 
Milly

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e4b5236f9a13698c02e@10.1.0.1...
> [for the unabridged version, see Mark V's post above]
> If I had to choose between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com",
> the simpler "www.grc.com" wins.


Why all the controversy?  Surely you are using relative links within the
web.  If so then it does not matter so long as the A record of both
www.grc.com and grc.com are the same.

No problem with either from my point of view.  Though most users will type
www.etc as a matter of course.

Doug Goss

Following Steve's excellent example, look at the message above if you want
the full scoop that is not quoted.

That said, Steve -- it is your site and it should follow your rules.  The
great outdoors is sufficiently inconsistent that you won't be doing wrong.

For myself, my fingers automatically type "www" after typing "http://".  But
they can be retrained.

It is YOUR site.  Follow YOUR instincts.  Thanks for asking, but "You Da
Man" and "You Da Boss".  It will be more consistent in the long run if you
follow your own feelings.  Trying to follow other rules will result in more
frequent violations and inconsistencies in the long run.

My $0.02 worth.  And not worth even that much.

  - Skip

Steve Gibson wrote:
> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.
> 
> I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought 
> it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same 
> IP as just "grc.com".  Our web server, therefore, would answer the 
> call from any subdomain -- real, imagined, fictitious, gibberish, 
> or "www".  And I've never thought of us as "www.grc.com" -- just 
> "grc.com". It's shorter, minimal, unique, sufficient.
(...)
I confess that I have not read this thread in full.

If you wish to "change the world", could you not cause www.grc.com to be 
directed to a web page with an explanation, and a click able link to 
grc.com or http://grc.com? That way, you would not lose any current 
links in web pages or search results, but explain the change. Those that 
chose not to modify anything could still find your server with an 
additional click.

[for the unabridged version, see Doug Goss's post above]

> Why all the controversy?  Surely you are using relative links
> within the web.  If so then it does not matter so long as the
> A record of both www.grc.com and grc.com are the same.

That won't work for secure connections.  SSL can't resolve 
security certificates by host name.  So the 'A' records do
need to be distinct.

(Note that as of this evening, there is a new incoming IP alive 
within the GRC network ... 204.1.224.230 ... which will become
the new IP for "www.grc.com" 24 hours (our current TTL) once Andy 
reads his eMail from me and updates Verio's DNS servers for me.)

---
But the 'A' records is not the issue Doug.  The problem is that 
having an "anything goes" policy tends to dilute incoming links 
since they can be pointing to different machines.  I will always 
allow either form to reach us, though it's shaping up to be that 
the "grc.com" form will be silently converted into "www.grc.com".


> No problem with either from my point of view.  Though most
> users will type www.etc as a matter of course.

Right.  Either will work, but I want our server to "strongly 
encourage" only one of the two.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]

> You have to get your money's worth! <g>  It'll be a long
> time before "www." is truly deprecated, if it ever is.

Right.  At the moment I FORCE any secure connections to redirect 
to "grc.com" which is the only security certificate I've 
historically had.  That will be going away shortly.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]

> Interestingly, I tried Amazon, Microsoft, and Yahoo; with and
> without "www.", and Google shows the exact same number of links
> both ways. There must be some way to make Google rank it that way.

Keith's memory is correct, though it might also have been 
something entirely on Google's end.  They happened to also be 
going through an upheaval at the time, and generating a great deal 
of controversy with their changed page ranking scheme.  So it 
seems likely that GRC's momentary disappearance from Google was 
not related to my blanked enforcement of "301 Permanently Moved" 
replies to their queries.

Also, FWIW, I believe that I was going in the "other" direction 
back then -- away from "www" and to just "grc.com".  So this 
change, if it's even related, might be "different" -- whatever 
that means.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> Also, FWIW, I believe that I was going in the "other" direction 
> back then -- away from "www" and to just "grc.com".

Being consistent is, probably, the key in the long run.

> So this change, if it's even related, might be "different" -- whatever 
> that means.

It shouldn't take long to find out what impact it will have on GRC's 
ranking.  Hopefully, it will be a positive one. :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

In article <MPG.1b3e7812cf991c0d989862@news.grc.com>, tlw@mindless.com 
says...
> [For the unexcerpted original, see above]
> Steve Gibson wrote ...
> 
--Steve Gibson's message snipped--
> 
> www.grc.com is visually balanced.  Actually, I don't think there's 
> really much difference, other than personal preference.

I like the visually balanced argument - seriously, I know it might be 
silly but it's one of the reasons I still write all of my dates as dd 
mmm yyyy - for example 20 June 2004 vs 6/20/04 (plus the lack of 
ambiguity).  I doubt if anyone will care as long as they can get to the 
site :).
-- 
Regards, G.S.

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote

>> If I had to choose between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com",
>> the simpler "www.grc.com" wins.


"Doug Goss" <dwg@iconz.co.nz> posted:

> Why all the controversy?  Surely you are using relative links within the
> web.  If so then it does not matter so long as the A record of both
> www.grc.com and grc.com are the same.
> 
> No problem with either from my point of view.  Though most users will type
> www.etc as a matter of course.

Some browsers will automatically insert the www. prefix if it's not used
(regardless of whether a connection attempt would have worked, they'll do
it as you're still typing).  Now, if a site was to redirect a www.grc.com
request to grc.com this seems an awful lot of mucking around (grc.com
becomes www.grc.com then grc.com again).

Answering to both fully-qualified domain names for all requests, without
any redirection, means that a site gets cached twice by many proxy servers
(both addresses separately).  So whateer you do, you should correct
requests to your preferred address.

Of course, if no webserver responds to just grc.com, any links to it would
eventually die off, and the www.grc.com address would become used by
everyone linking to you.

It also makes some sense to serve the usual webpages from a www. address.
If some time in the future other formats spring up with different document
techniques still served via HTTP, it might well be advantage to have
www.grc.com for the traditional content, and other prefixes for different
ones (I'm thinking of how WAP, etc., are similar but different, in this
sort of thing).  A person hand typing an address might have more chance of
getting the format that they wanted, if there was a usual addressing scheme
to get what they wanted.

Using www. certainly helps with DNS management.  It's very easy to direct
visitors to your website with a DNS query (the normal way).  Should you
want to host your website on a different IP than other things (e.g. shift
the hosting machine), then sharing an grc.com address with another service
might be more of a nuisance than you first thought of.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

In article <MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1>, 
support@grc.com says... 

<snip>

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I always use grc.com and whenever I want to go to a 
company website (or what I think the company website 
should be called), I always type in 'thiscompany.com', 
never 'www.thiscompany.com'. I vaguely recall that there 
have been a few times where my browser comes up with 
nothing and before I googlesearch, I give 'www' a shot 
and it has worked. Personally, I don't care.... but 
whatever you change to I hope typing 'grc.com' always 
works. Short and sweet.... I have always hated typing 
those 'wwwwwwwwwww's'

But then I wish I could type 'shieldsup.com' into a 
client's browser and get right to a port scan instead of 
'grc.com, click on shieldsup, scroll to link (arrgh, 
went past it, scroll back...sheesh, where IS it???? ah, 
*there* it is, CLICK).

none <ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> But then I wish I could type 'shieldsup.com' into a
> client's browser and get right to a port scan instead of
> 'grc.com, click on shieldsup, scroll to link (arrgh,
> went past it, scroll back...sheesh, where IS it???? ah,
> *there* it is, CLICK).

Does this work for you?

http://grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2

-- 
Robert
GRC newsgroup tips - http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Privacy and Security - http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm

In article <cb4375$93i$1@news.grc.com>, rwycoff@
127.0.0.1 says... 

> none <ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > But then I wish I could type 'shieldsup.com' into a
> > client's browser and get right to a port scan instead of
> > 'grc.com, click on shieldsup, scroll to link (arrgh,
> > went past it, scroll back...sheesh, where IS it???? ah,
> > *there* it is, CLICK).
> 
> Does this work for you?
> 
> http://grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2

oh yep, it works and that is what I have bookmarked in 
*my* browser.... but its a tad hard to remember at 
someone's house :)

Steve Gibson posted the following to grc.news:

> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.

Steve,
I'm a minimalist and hate typing so it's
grc.com for me.

This was really funny, using Opera I tried typing just grc by itself and 
it pulled the site below, Geelong Racing Club in Australia.
http://www.grc.com.au/
Sorry Steve you don't exist in the Australian domain.

Trevor.

In grc.news.feedback Licensed User wrote:

> In article <MPG.1b3e7812cf991c0d989862@news.grc.com>,
> tlw@mindless.com says...
>> [For the unexcerpted original, see above]
>> Steve Gibson wrote ...
>> 
> --Steve Gibson's message snipped--
>> 
>> www.grc.com is visually balanced.  Actually, I don't think
>> there's really much difference, other than personal preference.
> 
> I like the visually balanced argument - seriously, I know it might
> be silly but it's one of the reasons I still write all of my dates
> as dd mmm yyyy - for example 20 June 2004 vs 6/20/04 (plus the
> lack of ambiguity).  I doubt if anyone will care as long as they
> can get to the site :).

<minnor tittering heard from the back row>  ;-)

Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]
> 
> 
>>The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away
>>from the www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com
> 
> 
> Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.  
> But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and 
> "pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous 
> noise.
> 

That may be true among techi types like most of us here, but I highly 
doubt thats the case among the general public, the ones we need to be 
considering here. As others have pointed out, the general public seems 
to associate and expect WWW in front of links. Also, as at least one 
person pointed out, using the www (or foo for that matter) makes it that 
much easier to logicly separate it from other workings of [*.]grc.com, 
both in dns and other configurations, and in the minds of the average users.

MC

Terry L. Webb <tlw@mindless.com> wrote:

>[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
>Steve Gibson wrote ...

>> Also, FWIW, I believe that I was going in the "other" direction 
>> back then -- away from "www" and to just "grc.com".

>Being consistent is, probably, the key in the long run.

I believe that.

And as for which to keep, now that it's been pointed out that the "www"
affects link-creation behaviors of newsreaders, and Windows' behavior
too, "www." becomes the easy winner.

That _I_ like the short version means little.  For the masses, it's
certainly much more a point-and-click Net than type-and-enter.  Whatever
makes it really really easy for _them_ to arrive at the site has gotta
be right.

pchelp

Although we know our way around computers, by comparison with you guys, we
would regard ourselves as a non-techie household of 5 computers. I took a
vote this morning on this subject at Father's Day breakfast -- we go for
www.grc.com -- by force of habit.


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.
>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
none wrote ...

> I always use grc.com and whenever I want to go to a 
> company website (or what I think the company website 
> should be called), I always type in 'thiscompany.com', 
> never 'www.thiscompany.com'. I vaguely recall that there 
> have been a few times where my browser comes up with 
> nothing and before I googlesearch, I give 'www' a shot 
> and it has worked.

That's exactly what I do, too.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

In grc.news.feedback Terry L. Webb wrote:

> [For the unexcerpted original, see above]
> none wrote ...
> 
>> I always use grc.com and whenever I want to go to a 
>> company website (or what I think the company website 
>> should be called), I always type in 'thiscompany.com', 
[ ]
> 
> That's exactly what I do, too.

Even more minimalist, I start with the base domain name (and no TLD) 
and most times it works fine.  The browser is set to try "www" and 
"com,net,org".

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
MC wrote ...

> Steve Gibson wrote:
> > [for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]
> > 
> > 
> >>The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away
> >>from the www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com
> > 
> > 
> > Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.  
> > But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and 
> > "pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous 
> > noise.
> > 
> 
> That may be true among techi types like most of us here, but I highly 
> doubt thats the case among the general public, the ones we need to be 
> considering here.

The trend I was speaking of is what I have observed, mostly in the print 
media (Wal*Mart as exampled), radio and TV commercials.  It seems, to 
me, that there's more frequent occurrences of domain.com; granted 
www.domain.com is still more common.  A few years ago most used, and 
today many still use, the fully qualified URI: http://www.domain.com

-- 

Terry Webb ///

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Mark V wrote ...

> Even more minimalist, I start with the base domain name (and no TLD) 
> and most times it works fine.  The browser is set to try "www" and 
> "com,net,org".

Simply typing "grc" works fine here, too. :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.

<snip>
> I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought
> it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same
> IP as just "grc.com".  Our web server, therefore, would answer the
> call from any subdomain -- real, imagined, fictitious, gibberish,
> or "www".  And I've never thought of us as "www.grc.com" -- just
> "grc.com". It's shorter, minimal, unique, sufficient.
> change them.)
>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>
</snip>

imho, set the name servers to recognize both
www.grc.com and grc.com.

The common practice is to set domain name servers so that both are recognized,
and almost any site on the web works with either.

Example
www.95isalive.com
or
http://95islaive.com
have worked since day 1.

As for a clickable link in a web page, email, or news posting,
only www.grc.com or http://grc.com will work.  grc.com won't.

However the browser address bar will recognize all three when copied and pasted, and open GRC.

just my two cents ( adjusted for inflation )

-- 
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

Terry L. Webb <tlw@mindless.com> wrote in
<news:MPG.1b3f81afec2d6df1989870@news.grc.com>:

> Mark V wrote ...
>
>> Even more minimalist, I start with the base domain name (and no
>> TLD) and most times it works fine.  The browser is set to try
>> "www" and "com,net,org".
>
> Simply typing "grc" works fine here, too. :)

Here too, but only because www.grc.com is the top Google hit for "grc".
My Firefox 0.9 does a Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" search if I enter
something other than a valid domain or a predefined keyword in the
address bar.

-- 
�Q�

95isalive <admin@95isalive.com> wrote:
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
>> Everyone,
>>
>> I'm in a quandary.
>
> <snip>
>> I made a mistake many years ago when I setup our DNS.  I thought
>> it would be cool if "anything.grc.com" would resolve to the same
>> IP as just "grc.com".  Our web server, therefore, would answer the
>> call from any subdomain -- real, imagined, fictitious, gibberish,
>> or "www".  And I've never thought of us as "www.grc.com" -- just
>> "grc.com". It's shorter, minimal, unique, sufficient.
>> change them.)
>>
>> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>>
> </snip>
>
> imho, set the name servers to recognize both
> www.grc.com and grc.com.
>
> The common practice is to set domain name servers so that both are
> recognized,
> and almost any site on the web works with either.

I think Steve says there is some problem with SSL certificates, but maybe
you are talking about something different.  (In which case, ignore me. <g>)

/paste

Path: news.grc.com!.
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news.feedback
Subject: Re: Call for Opinions: To "www" or not to "www" ...
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:55:19 -0700
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <MPG.1b3ec69da2fe46f698c035@10.1.0.1>
References: <MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1>
<cb233f$cku$1@news.grc.com> <Xns950D9DAFE2F46z9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254>
<cb25qb$fbr$1@news.grc.com> <Xns950DAC3CB89E0z9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254>
<MPG.1b3e4b5236f9a13698c02e@10.1.0.1> <cb2uq2$905$1@news.grc.com>
Reply-To: support@grc.com
Poster: [10.0.0.10] (20 Jun 2004 05:55:19 GMT) {jaP2HBjK7QSoGC0jptTZwcqPtwU}
Archive: no
X-No-Archive: yes
User-Agent: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30
X-Original-Reader: 67.10.38.170
Xref: news.grc.com grc.news.feedback:51605

[for the unabridged version, see Doug Goss's post above]

> Why all the controversy?  Surely you are using relative links
> within the web.  If so then it does not matter so long as the
> A record of both www.grc.com and grc.com are the same.

That won't work for secure connections.  SSL can't resolve
security certificates by host name.  So the 'A' records do
need to be distinct.

(Note that as of this evening, there is a new incoming IP alive
within the GRC network ... 204.1.224.230 ... which will become
the new IP for "www.grc.com" 24 hours (our current TTL) once Andy
reads his eMail from me and updates Verio's DNS servers for me.)

---
But the 'A' records is not the issue Doug.  The problem is that
having an "anything goes" policy tends to dilute incoming links
since they can be pointing to different machines.  I will always
allow either form to reach us, though it's shaping up to be that
the "grc.com" form will be silently converted into "www.grc.com".


> No problem with either from my point of view.  Though most
> users will type www.etc as a matter of course.

Right.  Either will work, but I want our server to "strongly
encourage" only one of the two.  :)

--/
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

/end paste


-- 
Robert
GRC newsgroup tips - http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Privacy and Security - http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm

none said in:<news:MPG.1b3f5d05837eb18898980a@204.1.226.254>:
> In article <cb4375$93i$1@news.grc.com>, rwycoff@
> 127.0.0.1 says... 
> 
>> none <ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> But then I wish I could type 'shieldsup.com' into a
>>> client's browser and get right to a port scan instead of
>>> 'grc.com, click on shieldsup, scroll to link (arrgh,
>>> went past it, scroll back...sheesh, where IS it???? ah,
>>> *there* it is, CLICK).
>> 
>> Does this work for you?
>> 
>> http://grc.com/x/ne.dll?rh1dkyd2
> 
> oh yep, it works and that is what I have bookmarked in 
> *my* browser.... 

It shouldn't work, I don't think, unless you've already gone through
the 'doorway' (you should get "Browser Reload Suppressed").

> but its a tad hard to remember at someone's house :)

Try this then :-

1. www.grc.com/x/portprobe=25

2. That port will get probed (a nice initial 'oops' check: easy to
remember; the port number can be anything you like; the cert warning
is being fixed soon, it seems).

3. Hit the SU banner right at the top of the results page; then the
'Proceed' button; then the button for whichever scan you want ("File
Sharing", "Common Ports", "All Service Ports", "Messenger Spam",
"Browser Headers", "Custom Port Probe", "Port Info").

All you need to remember is "www.grc.com/x/portprobe=25", then
everything else follows naturally and obviously.

If you forget even that, just Google  grc portprobe  and hit the
first result :-

http://www.google.com/search?q=grc+portprobe

-- 
Milly

> Right.  Either will work, but I want our server to "strongly
> encourage" only one of the two.  :)
>
> --/
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!
>
> /end paste
>
>
> -- 
> Robert
> GRC newsgroup tips - http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
> List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
> Privacy and Security - http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm
>
keep it simple my fingers get tired
I say grc.com from a simple home users point of view.
don't fully understand the enginerring or technology concepts on how it
truely works like Steve does but I can always remember three simple letters
grc and .com is a given.
Take care
cel

In article <Xns950E78844D34Dz9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254>, 
notvalid@nul.invalid says... 

> Even more minimalist, I start with the base domain name (and no TLD) 
> and most times it works fine.  The browser is set to try "www" and 
> "com,net,org".

this I know, but I'd rather give the browser a better 
chance to get me there instead of it riffling thru the 
various 'www.com.org.gov' stuff. A poster below noted 
that his browser missed the mark when he just used 
'grc'... so there ya go. We use whatever works, right? I 
just have never liked the www prefix (feels like an 
'affectation' of sorts) and am glad browsers don't make 
you type in the 'http://' stuff. (can ya tell I hate 
typing????) If Steve settles on www I fear I will still, 
in conversation with someone who is having a problem 
that I know Steve's site can help with, yell out "Go to 
GRC.com!" Easy to remember.... 

Steve Gibson wrote:

> Everyone,
> 
> I'm in a quandary.
> 
> So what do you guys think?
> 
> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
The other issue is whether you ** ever ** expect to run a service other than 
WWW, e.g. an FTP server at the same address. Whatever you do, you must 
ensure that www.grc.com functions, even if the preferred route is grc.com, 
as newbies, and many browsers, will automatically insert www.

AlanD

"Robert Wycoff" <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:cb4fnv$kq7$1@news.grc.com...
> 95isalive <admin@95isalive.com> wrote:
> > "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> > imho, set the name servers to recognize both
> > www.grc.com and grc.com.
> >
> > The common practice is to set domain name servers so that both are
> > recognized,
> > and almost any site on the web works with either.
>
> I think Steve says there is some problem with SSL certificates, but maybe
> you are talking about something different.  (In which case, ignore me. <g>)
>
> /paste
> > Why all the controversy?  Surely you are using relative links
> > within the web.  If so then it does not matter so long as the
> > A record of both www.grc.com and grc.com are the same.
>
> That won't work for secure connections.  SSL can't resolve
> security certificates by host name.  So the 'A' records do
> need to be distinct.

Aah. OK.
But the common practice is to link to the https:// portion of the web from a page
within the normal http:// domain.

the https:// address doesn't need to be registered with the DNS, only the root web needs to be.

-- 
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

[for the unabridged version, see none's post above]

> But then I wish I could type 'shieldsup.com' into a 
> client's browser and get right to a port scan instead of 
> 'grc.com, click on shieldsup, scroll to link (arrgh, 
> went past it, scroll back...sheesh, where IS it???? ah, 
> *there* it is, CLICK).

Edith Keeler.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see none's post above]

> hey, that's a great idea and I sure can remember that 
> easily enough. Never actually gave a thought on making 
> that task easier, just knew where I wanted to go and did 
> whatever clicks to get me there.... but I tell ya, 
> sometimes people's dialup is so painfully slow I want to 
> scream, that's when I wish there was an easy to remember 
> link to SU instead of going thru the 'front door'.

Edith Keeler.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see none's post above]

> If Steve settles on www I fear I will still, in conversation
> with someone who is having a problem that I know Steve's site
> can help with, yell out "Go to GRC.com!" Easy to remember.... 

Of course.  And that's totally fine.  In this thread I've been 
talking about the "official" server name only, not about that 
"works".  I will NEVER prevent "grc.com" from working.  It will 
just silently and transparently bounce the user over to 
"www.grc.com" so that over time old external links, and probably 
all new links pointing to us will trend toward a SINGLE machine 
name for our web server.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> Edith Keeler

One of my favorite episodes ... and writers.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

In article <MPG.1b3fd9eb9ee95dc8989871@news.grc.com> "Terry L. Webb"
wrote:
> [For the unexcerpted original, see above]
> Steve Gibson wrote ...
> 
> > Edith Keeler
> 
> One of my favorite episodes ... and writers.
> 
AH!  NOW I get it!  I was all prepared to visit Google anyway, so this
is for anyone who doesn't have time to do that:

http://www.edithkeelerstime.com/KeelerWhoIs.html

-- 
Alan
Hermital's Original Essays and Shadowless Poetry:
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/index.htm >

[for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]

> > Edith Keeler
> 
> One of my favorite episodes ... and writers.

It was Harlan wasn't it?

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Steve Gibson wrote ...

> It was Harlan wasn't it?

Yes.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

[for the unabridged version, see hermital's post above]

> > > Edith Keeler
> > 
> > One of my favorite episodes ... and writers.
> > 
> AH!  NOW I get it!  I was all prepared to visit Google anyway,
> so this is for anyone who doesn't have time to do that:
> 
> http://www.edithkeelerstime.com/KeelerWhoIs.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------

Right.  This has been discussed before, but I was referring to
the point in the episode where the homeless guy complains to an 
unsympathetic (and already rather smitten) Captain Kirk, as Edith 
gets up on stage to "preach" to them, that "This is the way we pay 
for the soup".

In other words ... the ONLY THING that pays the bills for grc.com, 
ShieldsUP, these newsgroups, our bandwidth, etc. is SpinRite.
So moving past a reminder of SpinRite IS the way users pay for 
ShieldsUP.

It is only by asking people to stumble past the reminder of 
SpinRite's existence that a few, every so often, remember that 
perhaps they do need a copy and stop to grab it.  With more than 
20,000 people per day using ShieldsUP! every day, we don't get 
many ... but we get enough to keep the lights on.

And that number is much better today with SpinRite 6.0 -- and our 
site's strong traffic -- that it has ever been.  It let's me pay 
for my Hot & Soup Soup at my local Chinese restaurant.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Steve Gibson wrote:
> 
> [for the unabridged version, see hermital's post above]
> 
> > > > Edith Keeler
> > >
[snip]
> And that number is much better today with SpinRite 6.0 -- and our
> site's strong traffic -- that it has ever been.  It let's me pay
> for my Hot & Soup Soup at my local Chinese restaurant.  :)
> 

Personally I prefer the egg flower to the hot and sour.

Its a shame that we lost sight of the vision and ideals of Edith
Keeler in our rush to restart business after the war.  Well -
there are still some that have the vision.

-- Gerry --

> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Steve Gibson's post above]

FYI ... the new IP for "www.grc.com" started propagating a few 
hours ago. Since most of our relevant records had 24-hour TTL's, 
it may be up to 24 hours before your local DNS server's cache 
expires and returns to Verio for an update.

The "collective" IP for grc.com is [204.1.226.226], but the new IP 
which belongs only to www.grc.com is [204.1.226.230].  Our border 
proxies are set up and are relaying traffic inside.

So far, we've had a total of 1902 TCP connections through that IP 
(http and https), with a maximum of 17 at any time. By comparison, 
grc.com has had a maximum of 358 simultaneous connections and 
currently has 147.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...

> I'm in a quandary.

                           all the web   hot bot/google    altavista    MSN    Inktomi
www.grc.com    42,676          760                       0              7,641     7,645
grc.com             41,434          556                       0            67,692   59,373

http://search.msn.com/results.asp?q=linkdomain%3Awww.grc.com+-domain%3Awww.grc.com
http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?prov=Google&query=link%3Awww.grc.com&ps=&loc=searchbox&tab=web

http://search.msn.com/results.asp?q=linkdomain%3Agrc.com+-domain%3Agrc.com
http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?prov=Google&query=link%3Agrc.com&ps=&loc=searchbox&tab=web

hth, freebie tool for this at:
http://www.checkyourlinkpopularity.com/

--
'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
http://ntcanuck.com

In article <MPG.1b3fbdca693d83f98c043@10.1.0.1>, 
support@grc.com says... 

> In other words ... the ONLY THING that pays the bills for grc.com, 
> ShieldsUP, these newsgroups, our bandwidth, etc. is SpinRite.
> So moving past a reminder of SpinRite IS the way users pay for 
> ShieldsUP.

no no no!!!! you misunderstood what I was describing! I 
have NO problem with the 'portal' page (or doorway into 
GRC if you prefer) with SpinRite's prominent logo, I was 
referring to, when ShieldsUp!! logo is clicked, the next 
page is where I have to scroll to the entrance for a 
port scan. I always overshoot, can't seem to see it 
right the first time, like it doesn't catch my eye. That 
is what I was whining about and Milly has given me an 
easy way (an easy link to memorize) to get to the scan 
when I am in a hurry (like checking that all is well on 
the computers I set up for others). My own computer has 
a link in the browser faves for SU.

I went back and read my post because I was mystified as 
to why it was thought I wanted to 'skip' past SpinRite. 
I had to read it a few times till it came to me: I 
wanted to type 'shieldsup.com' to get to the scan and 
that *would* skip past SpinRite, if there were such an 
address.... What I should have said was 'I wish I could 
click on ShieldsUp and go right to the port scan page' 
or type 'grc.com/shieldsup' But Milly saved the day for 
me.

Almost everything I know about computers has come from 
GRC and the newsgroups here. I was lucky to have found 
this site shortly after I got my win98 comp and web 
access. I have never gotten a virus (tho I have had them 
mailed to me), never been hacked, no BHO hell, have 
always run a firewall (even when I was on dialup) 
survived all the cr*p that took others off the net. And 
I think I have pretty much maintained my privacy form 
netsnoop software. I have gotten less than 20 spam 
emails since 1998 (really!). And I give GRC credit for 
all of this. I would buy 10 copies of SR if I could 
afford it and should you ever decide to charge a 
subscription for the newsgroups I would be first in line 
to pay! And if you ever decide to upgrade ChromaZone, I 
know several people who want a copy. (And after I get 
this foot out of my mouth I will work harder on keeping 
it shut!)

My LangaList just arrived.... you're item #7!

Sorry for being OT, I'm slinking back to lurk mode 
now....

In article <MPG.1b403eea45e0fa5f98980d@204.1.226.254>, 
ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com says... 

> I went back and read my post because I was mystified as 
> to why it was thought I wanted to 'skip' past SpinRite. 

oops! I DID write in another post that I wanted to slip 
past the front door, my bad! But this was just for *my* 
convenience, not the way I thought it should be. Sheesh, 
that foot is in there permanently, I fear. Sorry!

"none" <ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b404365ba769efc98980e@204.1.226.254 
> In article <MPG.1b403eea45e0fa5f98980d@204.1.226.254>,
> ctdhlm602@sneakemail.com says...
> 
>> I went back and read my post because I was mystified as
>> to why it was thought I wanted to 'skip' past SpinRite.
> 
> oops! I DID write in another post that I wanted to slip
> past the front door, my bad! But this was just for *my*
> convenience, not the way I thought it should be. Sheesh,
> that foot is in there permanently, I fear. Sorry!

Might not this may be a good timne to use your CECIL ID ?

-- 

BullBar

In article <cb5ut8$vuv$1@news.grc.com>, bullbar@dev.null 
says... 

> Might not this may be a good timne to use your CECIL ID ?

never thought of that! I hope Milly saw I thanked her 
before I cancelled it....

but that won't get the foot out of mouth...

Mark V <notvalid@nul.invalid> wrote in 
news:Xns950DB37BEDC5Cz9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254:

> In grc.news.feedback Steve Gibson wrote:

....

>> But I also think that your arguments are compelling.  As I wrote 
>> above after reading your interchange with Mark V, if it were a 
>> choice between "http://grc.com" and "www.grc.com" ... the "www"  wins
>> in my book. 
> 
> Okay.  That is no contest for "average" humans.  <G>
> It seems software favors "www" prefixes as well in many cases.
> I _like_ lean clean "grc.com" (as does Sparky and several other 
> "techie" posters), but the preponderence of usability seems to conclude  
> that "www.grc.com" is the best practical choice at this time.

I prefer no ws, but this discussion has raised some good points, which I 
think speak in favour of them.  I've noticed lately, that television ads 
are leaving off the ws when they speak the address, assuming that we'll 
include them.  That's a pretty well entrenched convention...

> This has been facinating.  Are we (frequenters of technical groups) out 
> of touch with the masses (software and wetware)? 
> 
>   dub-dub-dub  :-)

2 Buffalo girls go 'round the outside...

Steve,

That's good to hear. It matches my own personal preferences of simply typing
in the address of the server that I want to go to (ex. grc.com vice
www.grc.xxx). I firmly believe that the use of www is redundant and "should"
be deprecated in favor of a functional naming scheme. In other words, if I
want to go to the mail server I should be able to type in mail.domain.xxx,
if I want the home page the scheme should be home.domain.xxx, and if I want
the news I would go to new.domain.xxx. The "official" server would represent
the root server that should direct all traffic to either the appropriate
server if it exists and to the home page server or an appropriate redirect
if not. That way if I am a "techie" type I can go directly to the
server/service I want and if I am a casual browser or site visitor I get
shifted to the home page as long as the root domain of whatever address I
typed in was valid. In other words, if I type domain.xxx I go to domain.xxx,
if I type in www.domain.xxx I will "still" go to domain.xxx and if I type
help.domain.xxx and help does not exist as a server on that site I will
"still" end up at domain.xxx.

Consider:

grc.com ---------- root or "official" server
      home.grc.com  ----- home site web presence with links and redirects to
other services
      shieldsup.grc.com ----- enuff said
      news.grc.com ----- news server
      media.grc.com ----- media server
      mail.grc.com ----- mail server
      etc., etc.

then

allotherservers.grc.com ----- redirect these to the home.grc.com server or
return a notification that tells them how to get there. In fact, the latter
choice ( a notification) might be the better choice in case some idiot trys
to flood your system.

DakotaDon


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3fa7474828558b98c03a@10.1.0.1...
| [for the unabridged version, see none's post above]
|
| > If Steve settles on www I fear I will still, in conversation
| > with someone who is having a problem that I know Steve's site
| > can help with, yell out "Go to GRC.com!" Easy to remember....
|
| Of course.  And that's totally fine.  In this thread I've been
| talking about the "official" server name only, not about that
| "works".  I will NEVER prevent "grc.com" from working.  It will
| just silently and transparently bounce the user over to
| "www.grc.com" so that over time old external links, and probably
| all new links pointing to us will trend toward a SINGLE machine
| name for our web server.
|
| -- 
| _________________________________________________________________
| Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

There. That's it. What I said.

DakotaDon


"abcministoragellc" <abcministoragellc@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:cb2flf$pmu$1@news.grc.com...

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...

<snip>

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Telephone books drop the www. in domain names to save space in the listing.

A HTML port 80 request should go to the default web server at www.grc.com
A newsgroup request should go to the default news server at news.grc.com
A HTTPS request should go to the default https://sercure.grc.com

If you run just ONE server, it can be named grc.com for http://grc.com
dropping the www. sub domain for HTML pages.

The main domain name is the IP address and the
sub domains are the port numbers for the IP address

You can change the default port numbers for named sub domains :-)
but not easy to do for the main domain name. :-(
You are stuck with the default port numbers for the main domain name. :-(

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:11:27 -0400,
"95isalive" <admin@95isalive.com> posted:

> But the common practice is to link to the https:// portion of the web from a page
> within the normal http:// domain.
> 
> the https:// address doesn't need to be registered with the DNS, only the root web needs to be.

HTTP or HTTPS is just the transfer scheme (how your browser gets something
from some server).  It's a fully-qualified domain name (www.grc.com or
grc.com) that you're using DNS records for (to connect to a certain
address).

Seeing as most sites are predominantly HTTP with some HTTPS sections, it's
quite easy to ensure that your own links to the secured section use the
right address (a complete address).  That takes care of SSL certificates
working properly from within your own site (the certificate must match the
fully qualified domain name it's written for (a certificate is written for
www.grc.com *or* grc.com, not both).  And URL rewriting (redirection) from
within your server can take care of incorrect links from external sources.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

In grc.news.feedback none wrote:

> In article <MPG.1b3fbdca693d83f98c043@10.1.0.1>, 
> support@grc.com says... 
> 
>> In other words ... the ONLY THING that pays the bills for grc.com, 
>> ShieldsUP, these newsgroups, our bandwidth, etc. is SpinRite.
>> So moving past a reminder of SpinRite IS the way users pay for 
>> ShieldsUP.
> 
> no no no!!!! you misunderstood what I was describing! I 
> have NO problem with the 'portal' page (or doorway into 
[ ]

> I went back and read my post because I was mystified as 
> to why it was thought I wanted to 'skip' past SpinRite. 
> I had to read it a few times till it came to me: I 
> wanted to type 'shieldsup.com' to get to the scan and 
> that *would* skip past SpinRite, if there were such an 
> address.... What I should have said was 'I wish I could 
> click on ShieldsUp and go right to the port scan page' 
> or type 'grc.com/shieldsup' But Milly saved the day for 

I get it now.  :-)

So, something that might be okay with Steve would be to have (since 
it is both high-traffic and probably most visited) a convenient but 
narrow clickable SU! banner positioned just below the SpinRite one.  
Or second best, have one very near the bottom of the default.htm page 
for "navigational efficiency".

Steve, is this reasonable and efficient and meet your needs while 
making it easier for the visitors?

[ ]

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.
> [snipped]
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????


Hi ,
I read all above to this date stamp.
I was amused and encouraged by the frequent elitist allusions to the nerdy
geeks who frequent these halls , and the great unwashed , the hoi polloi ,
the Sixpack Family and (mine) the esses in the Masses.

I suppose I am of the latter , for when I want GRC ( and I DO occasionally )
, I highlight the address bar in my browser , delete it , type grc , then
Ctrl+Enter..........and Hey ,  Presto !
So , ' I ' use the short variation automatically.......I think www to be
archaic....and it will probably become vulgar in time ( much as a keyboard
stuffed with crumbs and spilt coffee begins to smell)

I 'like' the idea of GRC.com being different , being elitist and being
special.  Gibson Research Corporation should be a pioneer in another
direction ( i.e. aside from providing the world yardstick on privacy and
consonant security ) and engender and even encourage criticism for being one
of the first to do away with supernumerary letters and extraneous prefixes.

Viva la differenza and the incredible minutae evoked by a question on a
quandary.  [g]

Regards.......................................Caligula

"NT Canuck" <ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb5q93$sn4$1@news.grc.com...

> hth, freebie tool for this at:
> http://www.checkyourlinkpopularity.com/

NT,

That link doesn't work.

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

In grc.news.feedback Robert  Wycoff wrote:

> "NT Canuck" <ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cb5q93$sn4$1@news.grc.com...
> 
>> hth, freebie tool for this at:
>> http://www.checkyourlinkpopularity.com/
> 
> NT,
> 
> That link doesn't work.

FWIW  Working from here at the moment. 
 http://www.axandra.com/LPC.exe  (download.)

kundenserver.de:http    212.227.119.99:80

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:32:17 +0000 (UTC), Mark V
<notvalid@nul.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>>> http://www.checkyourlinkpopularity.com/
>> 
>> NT,
>> 
>> That link doesn't work.
>
>FWIW  Working from here at the moment. 
<snip>

OK here as well.

Larry

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3ec69da2fe46f698c035@10.1.0.1
<snip>
> (Note that as of this evening, there is a new incoming IP alive
> within the GRC network ... 204.1.224.230 ... which will become
> the new IP for "www.grc.com" 24 hours (our current TTL) once Andy
> reads his eMail from me and updates Verio's DNS servers for me.)
<snip>

Just one more reason to run your own DNS server -- which is planned as far
as I know.

-- 
Tom Voss

"Tim" <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:7qsqrbw7wmhi$.17go0qeleynua.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:11:27 -0400,
> "95isalive" <admin@95isalive.com> posted:
>
> > But the common practice is to link to the https:// portion of the web from a page
> > within the normal http:// domain.
> >
> > the https:// address doesn't need to be registered with the DNS, only the root web needs to be.
>
> HTTP or HTTPS is just the transfer scheme (how your browser gets something
> from some server).  It's a fully-qualified domain name (www.grc.com or
> grc.com) that you're using DNS records for (to connect to a certain
> address).
>
> Seeing as most sites are predominantly HTTP with some HTTPS sections, it's
> quite easy to ensure that your own links to the secured section use the
> right address (a complete address).  That takes care of SSL certificates
> working properly from within your own site (the certificate must match the
> fully qualified domain name it's written for (a certificate is written for
> www.grc.com *or* grc.com, not both).  And URL rewriting (redirection) from
> within your server can take care of incorrect links from external sources.

grc.com is the domain.  Both www.grc.com and grc.com point to the grc.com domain in the dns system.

-- 
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e4d2e65466798c030@10.1.0.1
<snip>
> If anyone's browser ACCEPTED the www.grc.com, but always
> transmuted it into just "grc.com", I suppose THAT's what
> webmasters would "copy" when linking to us from their pages??

Since you wrote that sentence in the form of a question -- and as part of
the many hats I wear, Webmaster is one of them -- I'll throw in my two
cents.

If I was linking to GRC, I would most likely do it from memory. If I know
someone's domain name, and I'm in the middle of coding, I'm not about to go
wasting time by opening a web browser to see what the final URL looks like.
I'm pretty much going to count on the fact that www.grc.com will work -- 
especially since I've used that URL before and know it works.

So in answer to your question... some webmasters may copy and paste your
URL, but I wouldn't be one of those webmasters. For me it's www.grc.com all
the way.

Also, I can't help but choose www.grc.com based on the fact that it turns
into a clickable link in almost everyone's (well, at least 3 different
programs mentioned in this thread) email and newsreader software. To me,
grc.com gets lost in all of the other words in a sentence. www.grc.com
stands out. I'm sure that you'll see that when you read this post. How many
times have I referenced www.grc.com and how many times have I referenced
grc.com? I'm sure you'll find counting www.grc.com very easy. Then again, if
I keep typing www.grc.com you might become annoyed that half of this post is
in blue and underlined. :)

-- 
Tom Voss

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:49:22 -0700, Steve Gibson wrote:

	snipperoo
> So what do you guys think?
	snipperee
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I'm not sure my opinion is worth much in this august company; but just in
case it hasn't already been mentioned to death, let me point out that at
least some browsers (Opera, certainly; I think others) will automatically
add in the www and try again if it fails without.

-- 
Beartooth Implacable, curmudgeonly codger learning linux
Work is for people who can't hunt.

"Mark V" <notvalid@nul.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns950F6106A42B7z9zzaQ2btw@204.1.226.254...
> In grc.news.feedback Robert  Wycoff wrote:
>
> > "NT Canuck" <ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cb5q93$sn4$1@news.grc.com...
> >
> >> hth, freebie tool for this at:
> >> http://www.checkyourlinkpopularity.com/
> >
> > NT,
> >
> > That link doesn't work.
>
> FWIW  Working from here at the moment.
>  http://www.axandra.com/LPC.exe  (download.)
>
> kundenserver.de:http    212.227.119.99:80

Works now.

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

As long as I can type in grc.com and get to the front door,
I don't care what you use for your preferred web server URL.

When I establish a bookmark or anchor on one of my personal pages,
I defer to the preference of the site owner by typing in domain.com
and copying the redirected URL from my address or location field
on the browser I have open.

Given the discussion of how news readers and e-mail agents transform
a provided reference, I'll probably start using www.grc.com in my
communications with other humans so they can easily click on it to
get there.  http://grc.com involves too many characters and shifts.

In summary,
I like my life simple (grc.com),
but am cautious of the burden I place on others (www.grc.com)
and respect the wishes of those that own a property (copy the URL).

none wrote:
> In article <MPG.1b3fbdca693d83f98c043@10.1.0.1>, 
> support@grc.com says... 
> 
> 
>>In other words ... the ONLY THING that pays the bills for grc.com, 
>>ShieldsUP, these newsgroups, our bandwidth, etc. is SpinRite.
>>So moving past a reminder of SpinRite IS the way users pay for 
>>ShieldsUP.
> 
> 
> no no no!!!! you misunderstood what I was describing! I 
> have NO problem with the 'portal' page (or doorway into 
> GRC if you prefer) with SpinRite's prominent logo, I was 
> referring to, when ShieldsUp!! logo is clicked, the next 
> page is where I have to scroll to the entrance for a 
> port scan. I always overshoot, can't seem to see it 
> right the first time, like it doesn't catch my eye. That 
> is what I was whining about and Milly has given me an 
> easy way (an easy link to memorize) to get to the scan 
> when I am in a hurry (like checking that all is well on 
> the computers I set up for others). My own computer has 
> a link in the browser faves for SU.


Maybe so.  I understand your wish to reach SU "in a hurry".  I've had 
that "gotta scroll through the list to get to ShieldsUP" impatience 
myself on occassion.

But every time I have to do it, I note with a sense of warm familiar 
reminder ALL the useful tools Steve has provided there for anyone to 
use.  Especially the "Three Muskateers" so conveniently bundled on the 
first page. (Last week I had a client looking over my shoulder when I 
had to scroll for access to the SU link.  He said, "Hey yeah, I'm 
telling everyone about this site that you showed me!")

I understand how you feel about that, "I need to access SU NOW!" haste 
(occasionally).  What you were asking was a reasonable question.

But Milly should've known better than to give all those convenient 
front-page bypasses (and he/she was so efficient with each one! :\) out 
to the minions who read this newsgroup.  Steve said quite plainly, 
"Edith Keeler".   This is how we pay for the soup.  Milly's post helps 
to undercut Steve's effort, however unwittingly, I'm sure.

Milly should delete his/her post, as you did, "none", imo.  Evidently 
Milly hasn't read Steve' reply.  :\

(If it's already deleted, it's still showing in my browser even after a 
cache-clear.)

In grc.news.feedback sockpuppet wrote:

> none wrote:
[ ]
> 
> But Milly should've known better than to give all those convenient
[ ]

"sockpuppet", this personal vendetta or whatever it is is getting 
_really_ tiring.  Especially as you drag it to yet another group.  
Please just drop it as this kind of thing is not what GRC is about. 

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
> [...]
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>

There is nothing 'kiddie' about using www. In fact, I would argue that it is
far more 'techie' to use the www instead of nothing. Not the other way
around.

"grc.com" is the name of the domain. "www.grc.com" is the name of the web
server. Just like "news.grc.com" is the name of the news server,
"mail.grc.com" is the name of the mail server, and "ftp.grc.com" is the name
of the ftp server, etc. (assuming all of those existed). You can of course
name your servers anything you wish, but those are the standards, and are
easy to remember.

Even if they are all just one machine, it would be much easier in the future
should you wish to separate functions to different servers if your links are
named according to function. Your DNS server would take care of the
redirection based on server name, instead of by port or content request
type.

Connecting to "http://grc.com/" should work, of course, but would redirect
to the more proper "http://www.grc.com/".

"grc.com" is still the name of your website (just like "amazon.com" is still
the name of their company) but www.grc.com is the name of the server that
serves the content.

Computer geeks are elitest by nature (I'm guilty too), so as soon as
something becomes commonplace, they want to change it. But I'm also
extremely anal, and would hate to see a perfectly good, logical, and useful
standard be ruined (any more than it already is) just in attempts to be
different.

--Sean

Mark V wrote:

> In grc.news.feedback sockpuppet wrote:
> 
> 
>>none wrote:
> 
> [ ]
> 
>>But Milly should've known better than to give all those convenient
> 
> [ ]

<>

Do you disagree with my call for Milly to delete his/her post?  "None" 
had the class to do so, when Steve's wishes were explained.

This has nothing to do with any long-standing vendetta, of which you 
have no history, obviously.  (And I'm not the one who raised any 
vendetta here.  MY name was gratuitously thrown into a spat by Milly.)

I think Milly needs to delete that post.  His/her post shows so many 
quick, convenient ways to bypass Steve's carefully crafted marketing 
strategy.  THIS group is one of the most read world-wide on GRC (or it 
has been in the past.)  People come driving by here just to see what's 
new with Steve/GRC.

So, many will get Milly's handy little quick front page bypass tips.  To 
GRC's detriment, maybe.  At least Steve' said he sees it that way.

You are the one who brought any "vendetta" over here, MV.

[for the unabridged version, see Tom Voss's post above]

> Just one more reason to run your own DNS server
> -- which is planned as far as I know.

Absolutely yes.  Planned and happening before long.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

sockpuppet wrote:

> Mark V wrote:
> 

If you're so cozy with Milly, MV, why don't you let him/her know about 
this obvious gaff he/she posted here?  The objective is not to chastise 
Milly but to get the damn post removed, I would think.  Steve has too 
much class not to do it himself.  Duh.

(Unless it's already been removed.  I can still see it.)

[for the unabridged version, see Kenneth Doyle's post above]

> I prefer no ws, but this discussion has raised some good points,

I agree on both points.

And I find that after quietly "pushing" the use of the "www" 
during the months of SR6's development (you'll find that I was 
always deliberately using that format for all of my link postings) 
when I look at the plain "http://grc.com/..." in the url of a 
browser something seems missing.  <g>

The full "http://www.grc.com/..." is beginning to look better to 
me.


> ... which I think speak in favour of them.  I've noticed lately,
> that television ads are leaving off the ws when they speak the
> address, assuming that we'll include them.  That's a pretty well
> entrenched convention...

Right.  I was on the phone last night with Mark Thompson and he 
was directing me to a web site to see some equipment and he just 
gave the base domain name, but since "you can never go wrong" 
adding the "www", I did so "just to be sure".


> > This has been facinating.  Are we (frequenters of technical
> > groups) out of touch with the masses (software and wetware)?

I don't think so at all.  I think we're all just observers of the 
practices surrounding us, and that gray areas like this are always 
present and can be interesting to try to render less gray.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Tom Voss's post above]

VERY good points Tom ... and just looking at your posting in 
Gravity makes it even more vivid.

"www.grc.com" was the correct decision to come from all this. :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Mark V wrote ...

> Steve, is this reasonable and efficient and meet your needs while 
> making it easier for the visitors?

How about the SpinLite and ShieldsUP.exe utilities?  Seems like that 
would be a way to get exposure for SpinRite with more direct access to 
ShieldsUP!.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

[for the unabridged version, see 95isalive's post above]

> grc.com is the domain.  Both www.grc.com and grc.com point to
> the grc.com domain in the dns system.

I believe that the exact semantics of this would be that 
"grc.com" is a sub domain within the top level "com" domain, and 
"www.grc.com" is the name of a specific machine within the grc.com 
domain ... just as "mail.grc.com" might be the name of a different 
(mail server) machine, also within the grc.com domain.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Neo Phyte's post above]

Nicely stated Neo Phyte.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

My 2 cents worth - I _expect_ to see the "www."  I don't type in the
"http://" much anymore, and many programs will make www.grc.com into a
hyperlink, but not grc.com alone.


-- 
-- Dave /;^{D>

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard sockpuppet
mention:

> sockpuppet wrote:
> 
>> Mark V wrote:
>> 
> 
> If you're so cozy with Milly, MV, why don't you let him/her know about 
> this obvious gaff he/she posted here?  The objective is not to chastise 
> Milly but to get the damn post removed, I would think.  Steve has too 
> much class not to do it himself.  Duh.
> 
> (Unless it's already been removed.  I can still see it.)

Sheeesh! Take it off-line please! Steve has posted the same link
himself. Give it a rest...

"You'll also notice that the direct port probe page -- which is 
necessarily running over SSL -- is similarly denuded of 
expensive GIF images:  https://grc.com/x/portprobe=135"

Message-ID: <MPG.19dfd7b93177125e98bbcf@10.1.0.1>

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Don Voorhees wrote:
> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard sockpuppet
> mention:
> 
> 
>>sockpuppet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark V wrote:


Then why did Steve take the time to post the "Edith Keeler" big hint? 
He knows all those links are out there, too.  But when they're so 
"efficiently" compiled in one place, as in Milly's post, stated 
expressly with the intent to bypass the front page, well...it's 
something that a GRC regular just wouldn't do, unless foot was in mouth 
before brain was in gear.  :\

I still say Milly's post needs to be deleted.  And I have every 
intention of deleting all my references to it here, too, once the 
message has finally been effectively conveyed.  (I'm aware that all this 
attention to it isn't helping either.)

Either you are being intentionally obtuse, Don, or you really just don't 
get the point Steve made so acutely last evening.  :\

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard sockpuppet
mention:

> Either you are being intentionally obtuse, Don, or you really just don't 
> get the point Steve made so acutely last evening.  :\

Steve has noted the point on numerous occasions, and yes, I "get it".
What you don't seem to "get" is that Milly posted nothing that isn't
already widely available public information, including having been
posted here by Steve. Try a Google search on "GRC Port probe". How far
down the list is that same link? Look through the rest of the list.
How many other "direct" links do you see?

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=grc+port+probe

I know Steve is quite capable of using a redirector to route all
grc.com calls through the Spinrite pages if he felt it worthwhile to
do so. I strongly suspect that the slight amount of traffic that
bypasses the Spinright intro is primarily made up of users that are
already well familiar with Spinrite, and have either purchased it, or
determined they will purchase it in future if it's needed.

Your belaboring the point re:Milly's post simply appears to be
vindictive and unnecessary in light of the public nature of the
information you're complaining about. 

I see no further need for any discussion. If Steve feels the link
should be deleted, I'm sure he'll do so without your prompting.

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Steve Gibson wrote:

> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's 
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think, 
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that, 
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?

There is one, simple reason why it's good to prefex your web server with 
"www." It is the same reason why mailservers should be "mail." or 
"smtp." or "pop3." and that is because a simple installation may all 
reside on one server with a single IP address, but if you increase the 
complexity of your installation you may desire to forward the three or 
four variations to /different/ IP addresses, and the nomenclature makes 
such reassignments easy. To be sure, you can filter requests at your 
firewall and forward the appropriate ports to the appropriate servers. 
The sub-divided domain names just make things easier from a management 
point of view.

All in all, it really doesn't matter. YMMV. I'd go with the "www." 
prefixing the web server. My mileage doesn't count. ;)

Don Voorhees wrote:

> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard sockpuppet
> mention:
> 
> 
>>Either you are being intentionally obtuse, Don, or you really just don't 
>>get the point Steve made so acutely last evening.  :\

<point intentionally missed again apparently snipped>

\
> Your belaboring the point re:Milly's post simply appears to be
> vindictive and unnecessary in light of the public nature of the
> information you're complaining about. 

Ummmm...nope.  I'm not "complaining" about anything.  Just bringing 
something to Milly's attention that needs to fixed.  No matter how you 
try to SPIN it otherwise, Don.  Really.


> I see no further need for any discussion. If Steve feels the link
> should be deleted, I'm sure he'll do so without your prompting.


I know Steve wouldn't delete Milly's post.  I think he should, but he 
also has every reason to let it be that induhvidual's choice to do so.

If he had no problem with the whole ensuing explanation to "none's" 
query, why did he make this post and all subsequent clarification of his 
intent?  Why would he go to this effort to explain how he sees it, Don, 
if he could or wanted to create all those "redirectors" you're referring to?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<news://news.grc.com:121/MPG.1b3fa640ad2f37ac98c038@10.1.0.1>

[for the unabridged version, see none's post above]


 >> hey, that's a great idea and I sure can remember that
 >> easily enough. Never actually gave a thought on making
 >> that task easier, just knew where I wanted to go and did
 >> whatever clicks to get me there.... but I tell ya,
 >> sometimes people's dialup is so painfully slow I want to
 >> scream, that's when I wish there was an easy to remember
 >> link to SU instead of going thru the 'front door'.


Edith Keeler.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your chastising statements to me are inadvertently stating that all 
Steve's "Edith Keeler" references are superfluous.  Steve doesn't 
usually post here in that vein.  :\

Interesting that you've made such an effort to make this about ME rather 
than what is in GRC's best interests and in the spirit of Steve's 
expressed wishes.  What is YOUR agenda with this, DV? :|

Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see sparky's post above]
> 
> 
>>Well I like just grc.com as well, but then I'm a techie type
>>who knows that a web server can be called just about anything.
>>The average user probably thinks that a web site *must* start
>>with www and will type it into a browsers without thinking.
> 
> 
> Right.  And that would work for them -- always -- to get them
> to us.  But the unnecessary "www" would be stripped upon entry.

Is that really the case, or is it a myth that "www" is disappearing?

Does anybody have the facts to support (or refute) this?

Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see Terry L. Webb's post above]
> 
> 
>>The trend has been, and will continue to be--I think, away
>>from the www.domain.com usage.  I vote for grc.com
> 
> 
> Ah, your "trend" point is a good one that I hadn't considered.  
> But I'll bet you're right.  The "www" is "traditional" and 
> "pedantic", but it probably increasingly being seen as superfluous 
> noise.
> 

Just where is this "trend" information coming from? I haven't seen any 
supporting information on either side of whether "www" is becoming more 
or less popular, or staying the same.

Are these just wild a** assumptions?

Don Voorhees wrote:

> .... As the "dump www" movement gains momentum, the
> others will follow also, with the legacy links eventually flushing
> out. 
> 

Just where is this "dump www" movement?

"sockpuppet" <sockpuppet@myrealbox.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:cb78n5$6pg$1@news.grc.com...

> I know Steve wouldn't delete Milly's post.  I think he should, but he
> also has every reason to let it be that induhvidual's choice to do so.

Steve has deleted and modified other posts here on news.grc.com.  Why
wouldn't he do it for this post?

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Robert Wycoff wrote:

> "sockpuppet" <sockpuppet@myrealbox.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:cb78n5$6pg$1@news.grc.com...
> 
> 
>>I know Steve wouldn't delete Milly's post.  I think he should, but he
>>also has every reason to let it be that induhvidual's choice to do so.
> 
> 
> Steve has deleted and modified other posts here on news.grc.com.  Why
> wouldn't he do it for this post?

Why do you think he made the pointed "Edith Keeler" references, Robert? 
   Just to chat for a while about nostalgic Star Trek episodes?

Steve has "deleted and modified other posts" here, but usually when 
there's a cogent and/or egregious reason to do so.  If he summarily 
removed Milly's post just because she (inadvertently) helped to undercut 
his marketing effort, well, that would be pretty tacky.  Not his style, 
as you might've noticed.

But I think he should, anyway, and just send a tactful note to Milly.  I 
feel QUITE sure Milly wouldn't mind at all.  (But just as a gesture of 
class-act, Milly should delete it and acknowledge the sensitivity of the 
issue (privately, even).  IMO.

That's all I have to say about it.  Some can continue to make this about 
ME rather than the obvious clumsy gaff that's occurred.  But I got 
Steve's point, so I'll be sure not to be so quick to (plainly, 
efficiently) direct others how to avoid the GRC site opening page.  :\

sockpuppet wrote:

> Do you disagree with my call for Milly to delete his/her post?  "None" 
> had the class to do so, when Steve's wishes were explained.

If you want Milly (him, her or it) to delete a post, how about leaving 
the rest of the public readership of GRC (i.e. *us* ) out of your 
whining and put it in a private email to Milly?

Your continued sniping on Milly is getting damn annoying. We don't care 
if Milly is a him, her or it. If that's a problem for you then that too 
should be taken to private email.

Please STFU.

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Kerry Noyes wrote ...

> Are these just wild a** assumptions?

No, observations.  Keep reading. :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Don Voorhees said in:<news:s72128lblvsb$.dlg@12078.net>:
> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard sockpuppet
> [...]
> Steve has noted the point on numerous occasions, and yes, I "get it".
> What you don't seem to "get" is that Milly posted nothing that isn't
> already widely available public information, including having been
> posted here by Steve. 

Any number of times. For a while (when more topical) it was also
detailed on the home page.

> Try a Google search on "GRC Port probe". How far
> down the list is that same link? Look through the rest of the list.
> How many other "direct" links do you see?
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=grc+port+probe
> 
> I know Steve is quite capable of using a redirector to route all
> grc.com calls through the Spinrite pages if he felt it worthwhile to
> do so. 

Moreover, that style of direct link into the SU probe system was
*designed and intended* by Steve to be both bookmarkable and
Google-friendly.

> I strongly suspect that the slight amount of traffic that
> bypasses the Spinright intro is primarily made up of users that are
> already well familiar with Spinrite, and have either purchased it, or
> determined they will purchase it in future if it's needed.
> [...]

Indeed, or who found or were pointed to a direct probe URL as a test
for vulnerability to the hole du jour (DCOM on 135 being the first
actual GRC-assisted example, I think).

There's no dichotomy is Steve setting out his stall on his front
door through which most must pass, whilst also making a side door
available for some occasions. 

Nor is his explanation of *why* he funnels most traffic through the
front door (first made using the "Edith Keeler" analogy to *me*, in
this group, btw), in the context of a number of pleas for a clearer
entry point, at all likely to be intended as an implied ban on
occasional use of the side door (let alone mere mention of the route
through the side door). And as you say, he's eminently capable of
firmer control any time he wishes.

-- 
Milly

Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see 95isalive's post above]
> 
> 
>>grc.com is the domain.  Both www.grc.com and grc.com point to
>>the grc.com domain in the dns system.
> 
> 
> I believe that the exact semantics of this would be that 
> "grc.com" is a sub domain within the top level "com" domain, and 
> "www.grc.com" is the name of a specific machine within the grc.com 
> domain ... just as "mail.grc.com" might be the name of a different 
> (mail server) machine, also within the grc.com domain.

Actually grc.com is your domain within the COM top-level domain. 
"www.grc.com" is a sub-domain of "grc.com" (or sub-sub-domain if you 
prefer). It is intended that the domain registrant should be able to 
sub-divide his domain however he sees fit to manage DNS and traffic 
directions most efficiently to the appropriate server or servers.

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Kerry Noyes
mention:

> Don Voorhees wrote:
> 
>> .... As the "dump www" movement gains momentum, the
>> others will follow also, with the legacy links eventually flushing
>> out. 
>> 
> 
> Just where is this "dump www" movement?

http://no-www.org :-)

For my part, mostly just a realization that I'm seeing more and more
links without the "www" lately. Overall, I don't have a strong
preference either way... 

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Kerry Noyes wrote:

> sockpuppet wrote:
> 
>> Do you disagree with my call for Milly to delete his/her post?  "None" 
>> had the class to do so, when Steve's wishes were explained.
> 
> 
> If you want Milly (him, her or it) to delete a post, how about leaving 
> the rest of the public readership of GRC (i.e. *us* ) out of your 
> whining and put it in a private email to Milly?

>
I would have, but I don't have an email address for "Milly".  I however 
have a transparently valid email address on my posts.  :\

sockpuppet wrote:

> Kerry Noyes wrote:
> 
>> sockpuppet wrote:
>>
>>> Do you disagree with my call for Milly to delete his/her post?  
>>> "None" had the class to do so, when Steve's wishes were explained.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want Milly (him, her or it) to delete a post, how about leaving 
>> the rest of the public readership of GRC (i.e. *us* ) out of your 
>> whining and put it in a private email to Milly?
> 
> 
>>
> I would have, but I don't have an email address for "Milly".  I however 
> have a transparently valid email address on my posts.  :\

Then maybe you should just heed the last part of my advice and STFU. :)

Your persistance in bringing up a subject that the rest of the audience 
isn't interested in pursuing is trolling.

Milly wrote:


> Nor is his explanation of *why* he funnels most traffic through the
> front door (first made using the "Edith Keeler" analogy to *me*, in
> this group, btw), in the context of a number of pleas for a clearer
> entry point, at all likely to be intended as an implied ban on
> occasional use of the side door (let alone mere mention of the route
> through the side door). And as you say, he's eminently capable of
> firmer control any time he wishes.

I never said your posts violated any "BAN" on "side door" access to SU, 
nor that Steve was ever implying any such intended BAN. (This is just 
more SPIN/backpedaling, evidently.)

I suggest that given your obvious clear understanding of Steve's 
(marketing) intent in directing most traffic through his front door, 
that your post undercutting that effort is a bit inconsiderate.  (But I 
do agree with your effort to be helpful to "none."  I do.) A class-act 
would be just to remove it, instead of defending it endlessly.  And to 
keep such a sensitive issue in mind in the future. ( At least not to 
post it in *this* group.  ShieldsUp group would be fine, is my guess.)

But that's just me.

Kerry Noyes wrote:

> sockpuppet wrote:
> 
>> Kerry Noyes wrote:

> Your persistance in bringing up a subject that the rest of the audience 
> isn't interested in pursuing is trolling.

Steve was obviously interested in "pursuing" the point last evening. 
And it's customary in this group to follow up on what Steve discusses 
here.  That is not trolling.

And if you don't want to read this, you don't have to.  I refute your 
allegation that I'm just "trolling".

My comments are earnest and clear in their intent.  It's not my problem 
if you think they reflect negatively on anyone else.  Don't read it if 
it upsets you so much.  :)

Milly <@.....> wrote in news:1w7t99u6iboqk$.dlg@0O.0O:

> So ... www.grc.com ... in my book, overwhelmingly. 
> 
> grc.com is for techies and geeks (like us, who are capable of
> grokking either without breaking sweat). 
> 
> www.grc.com is for ordinary people: your main audience (who don't
> even read your purchase pages ;).

A year or so I would have agreed with you about that.  But there are a 
lot of sites that have stopped using the 'www' prefix and the interenet 
has not collapsed <g>  Since either will work as intended, why not go 
with the trend and drop the extraneous.

Just my opinion, FWIW (and that isn't much <wink>)

MikeD
 

Sockpuppet,

I have asked you before to please refrain from posting into
these technical special interest newsgroups at GRC, and I
will, and am, respectfully asking you again.  Please leave.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Kerry Noyes's post above]

> There is one, simple reason why it's good to prefex your web
> server with "www." It is the same reason why mailservers should
> be "mail." or "smtp." or "pop3." and that is because a simple
> installation may all reside on one server with a single IP
> address, but if you increase the complexity of your installation
> you may desire to forward the three or four variations to
> /different/ IP addresses, and the nomenclature makes such
> reassignments easy. To be sure, you can filter requests at your 
> firewall and forward the appropriate ports to the appropriate
> servers.  The sub-divided domain names just make things easier
> from a management point of view.
> 
> All in all, it really doesn't matter. YMMV. I'd go with the
> "www." prefixing the web server. My mileage doesn't count. ;)

Yes Kerry.  Your point has been made a few times during this 
excellent discussion, and It's a very good one.  Live and learn.  
:)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Kerry Noyes wrote:
> Your persistance in bringing up a subject that the rest of the
> audience isn't interested in pursuing is trolling.


Kerry,

That sounds like the opposite of trolling to me? Don't trolls want "the
audience" to pursue the subject, ad nauseum?

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.

Sam Schinke wrote:
> Kerry Noyes wrote:
> 
>>Your persistance in bringing up a subject that the rest of the
>>audience isn't interested in pursuing is trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the opposite of trolling to me? Don't trolls want "the
> audience" to pursue the subject, ad nauseum?

The troll wants to pursue the subject, the audience does not. He wants 
to pursue subjects that bring attention to himself and/or provoke trouble.

Steve has already had his final word. This is /my/ final word. Let's get 
back to productive discussions.

Kerry Noyes, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to use,
wrote:

> sockpuppet wrote:
> 
>> Kerry Noyes wrote:
>> 
>>> sockpuppet wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you disagree with my call for Milly to delete his/her post?
>>>> "None" had the class to do so, when Steve's wishes were explained.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want Milly (him, her or it) to delete a post, how about leaving
>>> the rest of the public readership of GRC (i.e. *us* ) out of your
>>> whining and put it in a private email to Milly?
>> 
>> 
>>>
>> I would have, but I don't have an email address for "Milly".  I however
>> have a transparently valid email address on my posts.  :\
> 
> Then maybe you should just heed the last part of my advice and STFU. :)
> 
> Your persistance in bringing up a subject that the rest of the audience
> isn't interested in pursuing is trolling.

  Correction, do NOT lump those of us who more often than not, just lurk and
listen. You have no right whatsoever to tell *anyone* who comes here to shut
the fuck up or not to...whether they post or lurk. It's called
'discussion'...neat concept ain't it. So, how about *you* quit your whining
about it all? If you don't want in the 'discussion', ignore it.
-- 
Linux 2.4.20-4GB-athlon
  5:49pm  up 10 days 21:13,  3 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00

Hmmm...  It seems like most websites require the www and will add it 
anyway if it is not typed in.

Norvin Adams III

"Tim" <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote 

>> HTTP or HTTPS is just the transfer scheme (how your browser gets something
>> from some server).  It's a fully-qualified domain name (www.grc.com or
>> grc.com) that you're using DNS records for (to connect to a certain
>> address).
>>
>> Seeing as most sites are predominantly HTTP with some HTTPS sections, it's
>> quite easy to ensure that your own links to the secured section use the
>> right address (a complete address).  That takes care of SSL certificates
>> working properly from within your own site (the certificate must match the
>> fully qualified domain name it's written for (a certificate is written for
>> www.grc.com *or* grc.com, not both).  And URL rewriting (redirection) from
>> within your server can take care of incorrect links from external sources.


"95isalive" <admin@95isalive.com> posted:

> grc.com is the domain.

I agree with calling grc.com a domain, and I would call www.grc.com a
sub-domain, though note that I used a term:  fully-qualified domain name
(a.k.a. FQDN), of which www.grc.com is (a FQDN).

> Both www.grc.com and grc.com point to the grc.com domain in the dns system.

As far as most people would see things, www.grc.com and grc.com "point" to
an IP address not a domain name.  And when I do a DIG on both, they both
point to an A record to 204.1.226.226.  Now, if www.grc.com had returned a
CNAME record pointing to grc.com I might have agreed with your second
statement.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:06:56 -0500, Norvin Adams III wrote:

> Hmmm...  It seems like most websites require the www and will add it 
> anyway if it is not typed in.
> 
> Norvin Adams III

It's not the website that adds www, your browser does that!  :))
-- 
Have a Nice Day, 'cause it beats having a Bad Day!
Tim   USMC(Ret) -- 6/22/2004 10:54:59 AM
He's not dead, he's electroencephalographically challenged.

Hear, here. Thank you Sean for a succinct (sp?) description of my somewhat
addled previous attempt at describing a functional organization of domain
and server(s) organization. In that vein, would not the best choice for the
"root" or "master" machine, i.e. http://grc.com? Especially if, as I
understand it, Steve intends to host his own DNS. As the top level domain
the grc.com can handle all the required housekeeping necessary to direct
server requests to the correct sub-system. I would think that a further
advantage would be that this type of organization will be more flexible with
respect to the expansion of additional services and servers.

DakotaDon


"Sean Baker" <smbaker01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb72h1$vep$1@news.grc.com...
| "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
| news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
| > Everyone,
| > [...]
| > So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
| >
|
| There is nothing 'kiddie' about using www. In fact, I would argue that it
is
| far more 'techie' to use the www instead of nothing. Not the other way
| around.
[truncated]

Hmmm. Are you certain that it is the web site that is doing this? Mayhap it
might be the browser software that carries out this action?

DakotaDon


"Norvin Adams III" <???@msn.com> wrote in message
news:cb8lqg$kal$2@news.grc.com...
| Hmmm...  It seems like most websites require the www and will add it
| anyway if it is not typed in.
|
| Norvin Adams III

In message <1dyj1jfy2ixm2$.dlg@Twilight.Zone>, Tim Daniel 
<takethat.YOUWASCALLYWABBIT@ELMERFUDD.nc.rr.com> writes
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:06:56 -0500, Norvin Adams III wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...  It seems like most websites require the www and will add it
>> anyway if it is not typed in.
>>
>> Norvin Adams III
>
>It's not the website that adds www, your browser does that!  :))

Sometimes it is the website, or at least their server. For example if I 
type google.com [or http://google.com] I get:
302 Redirect from:
http://google.com/ to:
http://www.google.com/
-- 
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets:
http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.

[for the unabridged version, see Kevin A.'s post above]

> Sometimes it is the website, or at least their server. For
> example if I type google.com [or http://google.com] I get:
> 302 Redirect from:
> http://google.com/ to:
> http://www.google.com/

Right, as entering "grc.com" will shortly.

I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if 
indeed any do.  But I suppose that if a connection to a non-www 
prefixed domain fails there's little to be lost in having the 
browser try adding a www. prefix.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b42535f455ddb6798c08c@10.1.0.1...
> I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if
> indeed any do.  But I suppose that if a connection to a non-www
> prefixed domain fails there's little to be lost in having the
> browser try adding a www. prefix.

With my IE60, typing "something.com" redirects that as search request to
MSN.  I don't like that either - a 404 says as much.  Typing
http://something.com does give "the page cannot be displayed."  (but
interestingly, no mention of a 404 error, just "Cannot find server or DNS
Error."  Hmmm, have error codes been abolished as too hard to understand?)

A bare "grc.com" does go to grc - but that path is so ingrained in this
computer that it probably does that without thinking.  Sorta like how I
drive sometimes.  <g>

-bb

Kevin wrote:

>> Sometimes it is the website, or at least their server. For
>> example if I type google.com [or http://google.com] I get:
>> 302 Redirect from:
>> http://google.com/ to:
>> http://www.google.com/


Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> posted:

> Right, as entering "grc.com" will shortly.
> 
> I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if 
> indeed any do.

Quite a few do, and I despise that as well.  But I'd sooner have the
browser play guessing games, so long as it's user-configurable, than the
wildcard rubbish we had with verisign to try and help you find a site that
wasn't where you expected it to be.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard bb mention:

> With my IE60, typing "something.com" redirects that as search request to
> MSN.  I don't like that either - a 404 says as much.  Typing
> http://something.com does give "the page cannot be displayed."  (but
> interestingly, no mention of a 404 error, just "Cannot find server or DNS
> Error."  Hmmm, have error codes been abolished as too hard to understand?)

That's the default setting for IE6, but you can change it with the
"Tools", "Internet Options", "Advanced", "Search from the toolbar"
settings. Changing it to "Do not search from the tool bar" will
restore the normal error messages...

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

"Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
news:1adku1dtjplhg$.dlg@12078.net...
> Changing it to "Do not search from the tool bar" will
> restore the normal error messages...

As Ms. Piggy used to say, "I knew that."
<g>

(Thanks the for reminder.)

[for the unabridged version, see bb's post above]

> A bare "grc.com" does go to grc - but that path is so
> ingrained in this computer that it probably does that
> without thinking.  Sorta like how I drive sometimes.  <g>

<g> indeed!  Love that.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Tim's post above]

> But I'd sooner have the browser play guessing games, so long
> as it's user-configurable, than the wildcard rubbish we had
> with verisign to try and help you find a site that wasn't
> where you expected it to be.

Yes, THAT was a real surprise and a real problem.  My god, 
replying to a failed, generic, DNS query with the IP of some 
random (any random) commercial site.  Unbelievable.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Kevin A.'s post above]
> 
> 
>>Sometimes it is the website, or at least their server. For
>>example if I type google.com [or http://google.com] I get:
>>302 Redirect from:
>>http://google.com/ to:
>>http://www.google.com/
> 
> 
> Right, as entering "grc.com" will shortly.
> 
> I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if 
> indeed any do.  But I suppose that if a connection to a non-www 
> prefixed domain fails there's little to be lost in having the 
> browser try adding a www. prefix.

Mozilla has a setting "Domain Guessing" which automatically tries adding 
www. and .com if the location to a web page isn't found. IIRC this 
feature defaults off (or I have set mine that way) and I agree with you 
that it's an annoying feature.

Isn't it nice that Mozilla leaves it up to the user? :)

Steve Gibson wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see Mark V's post above]
> 
> 
>>This has been fascinating.
> 
> 
> Yes, it has been.  And I think that the "www" is emerging as the 
> correct choice.  This is handy, also, since I just spent $1600 on 
> a secure certificate for it (is THAT not highway robbery? !!!)
> 

Yes it is. You can get free certificates from:

https://www.cacert.org/index.php

Dave Murray
Glasgow, UK
PGP KeyID: 0x838592B3

"bb" <bb@invalid.com> wrote in message news:cbbrdp$i46$1@news.grc.com
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b42535f455ddb6798c08c@10.1.0.1...
>> I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if
>> indeed any do.  But I suppose that if a connection to a non-www
>> prefixed domain fails there's little to be lost in having the
>> browser try adding a www. prefix.
>
> With my IE60, typing "something.com" redirects that as search request
> to MSN.  I don't like that either - a 404 says as much.

That behaviour is configurable, if you want to stop searching from the
Address bar

Tools | Internet Options | Advanced (tab) | Search from Address bar |
When searching | select "Do not search from the Address bar" | OK

-- 

BullBar

"Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
news:1adku1dtjplhg$.dlg@12078.net
> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard bb mention:
>
>> With my IE60, typing "something.com" redirects that as search
>> request to MSN.  I don't like that either - a 404 says as much.
>> Typing http://something.com does give "the page cannot be
>> displayed."  (but interestingly, no mention of a 404 error, just
>> "Cannot find server or DNS Error."  Hmmm, have error codes been
>> abolished as too hard to understand?)
>
> That's the default setting for IE6, but you can change it with the
> "Tools", "Internet Options", "Advanced", "Search from the toolbar"
> settings. Changing it to "Do not search from the tool bar" will
> restore the normal error messages...

Hi Don,

Yes the above will stop IE searching from the addess bar, but I don't
think that will 'restore the normal error messsages'.  Isn't that
achieved by turning off 'Friendly HTTP error messages'?  Tools |
Internet Options | Advanced | Browsing | deselect "Show friendly HTTP
ewrror messages"

-- 

BullBar

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Bullbar mention:

> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> news:1adku1dtjplhg$.dlg@12078.net
>> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard bb mention:
>>
>>> With my IE60, typing "something.com" redirects that as search
>>> request to MSN.  I don't like that either - a 404 says as much.
>>> Typing http://something.com does give "the page cannot be
>>> displayed."  (but interestingly, no mention of a 404 error, just
>>> "Cannot find server or DNS Error."  Hmmm, have error codes been
>>> abolished as too hard to understand?)
>>
>> That's the default setting for IE6, but you can change it with the
>> "Tools", "Internet Options", "Advanced", "Search from the toolbar"
>> settings. Changing it to "Do not search from the tool bar" will
>> restore the normal error messages...
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> Yes the above will stop IE searching from the addess bar, but I don't
> think that will 'restore the normal error messsages'.  Isn't that
> achieved by turning off 'Friendly HTTP error messages'?  Tools |
> Internet Options | Advanced | Browsing | deselect "Show friendly HTTP
> ewrror messages"

I have "Friendly HTTP..." checked, and I get normal 404's as long as
the search setting is on "Do not search...". If that's not what's
supposed to happen, then I must have something else set/unset
somewhere that isn't obvious to me... :-)

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

[for the unabridged version, see irongut's post above]

> > Yes, it has been.  And I think that the "www" is emerging as
> > the correct choice.  This is handy, also, since I just spent
> > $1600 on a secure certificate for it (is THAT not highway
> > robbery? !!!) 

> Yes it is. You can get free certificates from:
> 
> https://www.cacert.org/index.php

Unfortunately, that also requires the installation of a matching 
certificate in the user's browser. The great advantage of Verisign 
is that they were in there early, if not first, and their public 
certificates are pre-installed into ALL browsers.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Steve Gibson wrote:

> ... The great advantage of Verisign 
> is that they were in there early, if not first, and their public 
> certificates are pre-installed into ALL browsers.

Ain't it great to be in bed with the Windoze mothership! :-D

Hmmm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. My experience seems to be the most of the
commonly used browsers will automatically append or prepend(?) www and/or
..com, .net, .edu, etc. to whatever I type into the address bar "unless" I
type in a fully qualified address. For example, if I type "grc" into my IE
address bar the browser software will modify it to be www.grc AND try and
locate the resource at the .com, .net, .gov, .whatever domain and present me
with the first one it finds on it's list.

On the other hand, when I type in http://grc.com (or http://grc.net or
whatever) the browser accepts entry "as written" and queries the DNS for the
resource. If the resource is not found I get a "404" otherwise I am directed
to the appropriate site. It is at that point the server will redirect me, if
necessary, to the appropriate page/resource.

Is this a correct description of the process? I see this behavior not only
in IE but in Mozilla, Netscape, Avant, MyIE2 and Opera.

DakotaDon

"Learning is a never ending process. If you don't ask questions, you never
learn about your mistakes." - Anon



"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b42535f455ddb6798c08c@10.1.0.1...
| [for the unabridged version, see Kevin A.'s post above]
|
| > Sometimes it is the website, or at least their server. For
| > example if I type google.com [or http://google.com] I get:
| > 302 Redirect from:
| > http://google.com/ to:
| > http://www.google.com/
|
| Right, as entering "grc.com" will shortly.
|
| I dislike the idea of browsers doing that for their user, if
| indeed any do.  But I suppose that if a connection to a non-www
| prefixed domain fails there's little to be lost in having the
| browser try adding a www. prefix.
|
| -- 
| _________________________________________________________________
| Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:27:54 -0400,
Don Voorhees <abuse@12078.net> posted:

> I have "Friendly HTTP..." checked, and I get normal 404's as long as

They're "unfriendly" messages are generally only provided when the server
replied with a short terse error message.  If the server replies with a
lengthy one it's generally displayed, the idea being that they might have
some useful help information that's worth displaying, instead.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:32:56 +0100,
irongut <irongut@NOSPAM.paranoia.clara.net> posted:

> You can get free certificates from:
> 
> https://www.cacert.org/index.php

Using a real browser, I get the following warning about attempting to use
that site (synopsis - you've no reason to trust *them* in the first place,
to be able to trust anything authenticated by them):

"Unable to verify the identify of www.cacert.org as a trusted site.

"Possible reasons for this error:
- Your browser does not recognize the Certificate Authority that issued the
site's certificate.
- The site's certificate is incomplete due to a server misconfiugruation.
- You are connected to a site pretending to be www.cacert.org, possibly to
obtain your confidential information.

"Plese notify the site's webmaster about this problem.

"Before accepting this certificate, you should examine this site's
certificate carefully.  Are you willing to accept this certificat for the
purpose of identifying the Web site www.cacert.org?"

If I do look at the certificate, I see that it's a self-signed one.  I
could do that myself (generate my own, and sign it myself), with about as
much trustworthiness (i.e. none).  Certificates really need to be
authenticated by a third party, one that's known to actually check against
the owner's identity.  Some party that you can trust not to deceive you.

(As far as I'm concerned, Verisign lost that trust a long time ago.)

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Tim mention:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:27:54 -0400,
> Don Voorhees <abuse@12078.net> posted:
> 
>> I have "Friendly HTTP..." checked, and I get normal 404's as long as
> 
> They're "unfriendly" messages are generally only provided when the server
> replied with a short terse error message.  If the server replies with a
> lengthy one it's generally displayed, the idea being that they might have
> some useful help information that's worth displaying, instead.

Ah! Ok, thanks Tim. I'll have to play around with the settings a bit
the next time I'm digging into IE...

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Steve Gibson wrote:

> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

I read through the message with interest, and one single
thing helped me reach my decision. Using my mail client
(Thunderbird) I noticed straight away that "www.grc.com"
was highlighted as a link, whereas "grc.com" was not.

For that reason, the massive convenience of just being
able to click to open I'd go strongly in favour of
www.grc.com.

Cheers,

Stuart.

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Tim wrote ...

> (As far as I'm concerned, Verisign lost that trust a long time ago.)

Are there any trustworthy certificate authorities, or is it all just a 
mind game to make users feel secure?  Personally, I find certificates 
more annoying than comforting.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Tim wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:27:54 -0400,
> Don Voorhees <abuse@12078.net> posted:
> 
> 
>>I have "Friendly HTTP..." checked, and I get normal 404's as long as
> 
> 
> They're "unfriendly" messages are generally only provided when the server
> replied with a short terse error message.  If the server replies with a
> lengthy one it's generally displayed, the idea being that they might have
> some useful help information that's worth displaying, instead.

You /know/ that whenever you check anything "friendly" in Windows that 
you're telling Windows to treat you like a totally clueless newbie. 
"Friendly" in Winspeak means "I am an idiot." :)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:55:18 -0700, Kerry Noyes
<kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote:

>Your continued sniping on Milly is getting damn annoying. We don't care 
>if Milly is a him, her or it.

Won't speak for others but I'd rather you not speak for me, please.

> If that's a problem for you then that too 
>should be taken to private email.
>
>Please STFU.

Two words, Kerry:  KILL FILE   They work nicely and you wind up taking
a proactive approach in preventing the stress of whatever is getting
to you.  


-- 
http://www.cotse.net - Use it, you know you want to.
If you're too scared to go look for yourself, ask me
about COTSE. I'd be happy to tell you about it.

[ Doc Jeff ] wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:55:18 -0700, Kerry Noyes
> <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Your continued sniping on Milly is getting damn annoying. We don't care 
>>if Milly is a him, her or it.
> 
> 
> Won't speak for others but I'd rather you not speak for me, please.
> 
> 
>>If that's a problem for you then that too 
>>should be taken to private email.
>>
>>Please STFU.
> 
> 
> Two words, Kerry:  KILL FILE   They work nicely and you wind up taking
> a proactive approach in preventing the stress of whatever is getting
> to you.  
> 

Seconded... absolutely... plonk 'em....


-- 
Le Flake
from deepest, darkest Qu�bec

Hi all,

> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think,
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that,
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?

"www" is the convention, which means that it's not set in stone, it's just
the most common. I've used "web" as an alternate, as well as
purpose-specific names for specialized webs (e.g., teach.domain.tld for the
classes I've taught)

Another reply in the thread mentioned that the domain is responsible for
getting mail where it belongs (you email to user@domain.tld, not
user@mail.domain.tld); however, that's possible not because an email server
has the FQDN of "domain.tld", but because there's a special type of DNS
record (MX) that an SMTP server uses to "find" the true destination for the
mail.

Although you as a user may never realize you're sending to a specific mail
server (e.g., mail to user@domain.org is really sent to a server called
mail1.dept.domain.org), that's really what's happening. The connection is
between two specific hosts: the server and the client.

Which provides me to the segue to my opinion on the current argument:

Until the DNS system is extended to the equivalent of "MX records" for other
common protocol types (NNTP, FTP, HTTP, etc.), we are--ultimately--still
creating a client-server communication link, and specifying the specific
server name--especially for SSL transmissions, where authentication and
non-repudiation are critical--is the most correct.

That said, there's no reason why the SSL cert can't be set to
"secure.grc.com" or "bambam.grc.com" or any other specific hostname. But
I'll argue against using just "grc.com"...

[for the unabridged version, see Kerry Noyes's post above]

> > ... The great advantage of Verisign 
> > is that they were in there early, if not first, and their
> > public certificates are pre-installed into ALL browsers.
> 
> Ain't it great to be in bed with the Windoze mothership! :-D

Yeah, but many dead companies have thought so too, until Microsoft 
decided that they wanted to move into that market too.  Bye bye.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

[for the unabridged version, see Stuart Marshall's post above]

> > So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> I read through the message with interest, and one single
> thing helped me reach my decision. Using my mail client
> (Thunderbird) I noticed straight away that "www.grc.com"
> was highlighted as a link, whereas "grc.com" was not.
> 
> For that reason, the massive convenience of just being
> able to click to open I'd go strongly in favour of
> www.grc.com.

Yep.  That's also something I had never fully appreciated.
I do now, and as I posted in 'grc.thinktank', the move over
to "www.grc.com" is now underway.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Steve,
I pretty much agree with you, I prefer the shorter more simplistic version
of the URL. There is nothing in the URL specifications (RFC1738 and RFC2616)
that says www has to be used. However having and allowing both is essential,
I also run DNS and it always irks me when some admin doesn't do a simple
cname www entry for their primary domain name. I always thought that having
both was just plain and simply the "right" way to code DNS. If none other
than to catch requests of those who do use the www and those who do not. But
I know that the majority of folks have come to know and love the www. as
"thee" defacto web address standard. So it's really just a comfort thing,
I'd say your leaning toward the non www address, which in my opinion, works
great.

Of course people will do whatever is most familiar and learned. With the IE
browser you can enter something like grc and then hit ctrl+enter and the www
and .com are added automatically.

Keep up the great work you do Steve.


"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.
>
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So what do you guys think?
>
> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www)
> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no
> one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL
> shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen,
> all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external
> links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other
> format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that
> process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the
> sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could
> change them.)
>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b40b40f50a8d36998c06a@10.1.0.1...
> [for the unabridged version, see 95isalive's post above]
>
> > grc.com is the domain.  Both www.grc.com and grc.com point to
> > the grc.com domain in the dns system.
>
> I believe that the exact semantics of this would be that
> "grc.com" is a sub domain within the top level "com" domain, and
> "www.grc.com" is the name of a specific machine within the grc.com
> domain ... just as "mail.grc.com" might be the name of a different
> (mail server) machine, also within the grc.com domain.

I thought that went out with the old machinery that could only do a couple
of thousand things at once.  Now a modest machine can do a couple of million
things at once everything's gone 'virtual'.

> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

Take your cue from Madison ave and stick with plain old simple grc.com.
Makes for a stronger branding.  BTW (rhetorical ?, I'll look for myself)
have you reserved gibsonresearch.com or gibsonresearchcorporation.com and
the infinite variations thereof?  Or do you just hope that google will help
you maintain your grip on your name.  All that reserving to protect your
name on the web can become expensive.  AFAIK microsoftsucks.com has not been
reserved.  Any takers?  As the internet becomes almost completely
commercialized, DNS and ICANN should probably take this respect for a name
into account in DNS next incarnation.  But, I digress, and I quit.

Tony

<huge snippage>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????

Well ... why not both ;-) ?!?

It's just a matter of having two "A" records
pointing to the same IP address, it's *not*
illegal and will solve the problem

Unattributed sources wrote:

>> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????


"ObiWan" <anzen.NO@SPAM.gmx.net> posted:
 
> Well ... why not both ;-) ?!?

Caching...  You can have both responding, but unless you *also* redirect
one to your preference, a website gets cached twice over.  That's wasteful.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Tim wrote:

> Unattributed sources wrote:
> 
> 
>>>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 
> 
> 
> "ObiWan" <anzen.NO@SPAM.gmx.net> posted:
>  
> 
>>Well ... why not both ;-) ?!?
> 
> 
> Caching...  You can have both responding, but unless you *also* redirect
> one to your preference, a website gets cached twice over.  That's wasteful.
> 

I think it's more to do with the dilution of Google and other search 
engine hits.  You get a better rating if all links point to www.grc.com 
than if they are split between www.grc.com and grc.com.

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> might have wrote: 

>> I believe that the exact semantics of this would be that "grc.com" is a
>> sub domain within the top level "com" domain, and "www.grc.com" is the
>> name of a specific machine within the grc.com domain ... just as
>> "mail.grc.com" might be the name of a different (mail server) machine,
>> also within the grc.com domain.

"Tony Klamm" <tonyklamm@hotmail.com> posted: 

> I thought that went out with the old machinery that could only do a
> couple of thousand things at once.  Now a modest machine can do a couple
> of million things at once everything's gone 'virtual'.

What has what you've said got to do with what you've quoted? 

> Take your cue from Madison ave and stick with plain old simple grc.com.

I think you've missed plenty of prior messages outlining what "grc.com" is
less useful in mail and news than "www.grc.com". 

> have you reserved gibsonresearch.com or gibsonresearchcorporation.com and
> the infinite variations thereof?  Or do you just hope that google will
> help you maintain your grip on your name.  All that reserving to protect
> your name on the web can become expensive.

It'd be a sorry state indeed if people felt the need to reserve any
possible potential connection with their name against other people using
it.  The potential is limitless. 

> As the internet becomes almost completely commercialized, DNS and ICANN
> should probably take this respect for a name into account in DNS next
> incarnation.  But, I digress, and I quit. 

Some registrars do actually play the game properly.  In Australia, you have
to have a registered business name to get a .com.au address, and it has to
be obviously related to your business name (including domain "names" made
from company name acronyms).

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to. 

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

> I think it's more to do with the dilution of Google and other search
> engine hits.  You get a better rating if all links point to www.grc.com
> than if they are split between www.grc.com and grc.com.

Right, it's my opinion too, now, if the real focus of the "problem" is
this one (search engines scoring)... well, a simple solution would
be configuring the "www" to point to the same ip as "grc.com" and
then setting up a "virtual server" on www so that requests made to
www will be redirected (meta refresh... tag) to the "grc.com", this
way, search engines will sync and score just on the "grc" site and
after a while the "www" may be removed (if desired)

ObiWan wrote:

>>I think it's more to do with the dilution of Google and other search
>>engine hits.  You get a better rating if all links point to www.grc.com
>>than if they are split between www.grc.com and grc.com.
> 
> 
> Right, it's my opinion too, now, if the real focus of the "problem" is
> this one (search engines scoring)... well, a simple solution would
> be configuring the "www" to point to the same ip as "grc.com" and
> then setting up a "virtual server" on www so that requests made to
> www will be redirected (meta refresh... tag) to the "grc.com", this
> way, search engines will sync and score just on the "grc" site and
> after a while the "www" may be removed (if desired)
> 
> 
> 

Yes, and that's what the discussion has been about - which way to 
redirect.  Does Steve redirect www.grc.com to grc.com or grc.com to 
www.grc.com?  He, along with many of us (including me) had a preference 
for the former, but after debate he decided on the latter.  Partly 
because the average user is used to adding www to a web site domain name 
and partly because many news readers and email clients will turn 
www.grc.com into a link when grc.com won't be.

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
sparky wrote ...

> I think it's more to do with the dilution of Google and other search 
> engine hits.  You get a better rating if all links point to www.grc.com 
> than if they are split between www.grc.com and grc.com.

I think it's more to do with www.grc.com appearing as a clickable link 
in newsgroup and eMail clients. ;)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Tim wrote:

> "Tony Klamm" <tonyklamm@hotmail.com> posted: 
> 
> 
>>have you reserved gibsonresearch.com or gibsonresearchcorporation.com and
>>the infinite variations thereof?  Or do you just hope that google will
>>help you maintain your grip on your name.  All that reserving to protect
>>your name on the web can become expensive.
> 
> 
> It'd be a sorry state indeed if people felt the need to reserve any
> possible potential connection with their name against other people using
> it.  The potential is limitless. 

Then it must be a sorry state. It is common practice to register .NET 
and .ORG when a business decides to register a .COM domain. The larger 
your company, the bigger your product, the more distantly related names 
are registered simply to deny their use to copycats.

Tim wrote:

>> (As far as I'm concerned, Verisign lost that trust a long time ago.)


Terry L. Webb <tlw@mindless.com> posted:
 
> Are there any trustworthy certificate authorities, or is it all just a 
> mind game to make users feel secure?  

Good question.  How many of us have looked at a certificate and researched
the issuer to find out what steps they take to really verify the identity
of the person that they're issuing it to?

I've had one issued to me when I tried to pay my telephone bill.  It wanted
me to use a user certificate with their site certificate.  No real check
was made to see if I were who I ought to be.

The same applies to other cases, if I were to get ID issued to me for
various things in real life, most places ask for nothing more identifying
than a handful of bills to the same address.  Any thief could do that (grab
someone else's documents, and use them).

Then there's the next situation:  Once you have ID, people assume it's
yours and not fraudulent, they don't bother to check on it once you flash
it at them.

> Personally, I find certificates more annoying than comforting.

In what way?  If all goes well (they're up to date, and your browser
doesn't need to get you to verify if someone is who you thought they were),
they should be transparent to the user.

I have found user certificates to be a pain.  I had to configure my browser
to use it in the way I wanted (prompting me before giving away such
information, etc.).  Then I couldn't reconfigure it to automatically deal
with *that* service and my certificate.  And I couldn't use another web
browser (it was heavily tied into MSIE on this PC, and useless if I wanted
to use some other PC).

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Tony Klamm wrote:

> Take your cue from Madison ave and stick with plain old simple grc.com.
> Makes for a stronger branding.  BTW (rhetorical ?, I'll look for myself)
> have you reserved gibsonresearch.com or gibsonresearchcorporation.com and
> the infinite variations thereof?  Or do you just hope that google will help
> you maintain your grip on your name.  All that reserving to protect your
> name on the web can become expensive.  AFAIK microsoftsucks.com has not been
> reserved.  Any takers?  As the internet becomes almost completely
> commercialized, DNS and ICANN should probably take this respect for a name
> into account in DNS next incarnation.  But, I digress, and I quit.

Microsoftsucks.com? Don't you check your facts before posting:


    Organization:
       Whitehouse.com Inc.
       Whitehouse.com Inc
       295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
       New York, NY 10007
       US
       Phone: 1-973-335-4917
       Email: dparisi@garden.net

    Registrar Name....: Register.com
    Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

    Domain Name: MICROSOFTSUCKS.COM

       Created on..............: Thu, May 21, 1998
       Expires on..............: Fri, May 20, 2005
       Record last updated on..: Mon, Apr 12, 2004

    Administrative Contact:
       Whitehouse.com Inc.
       Whitehouse.com Inc
       295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
       New York, NY 10007
       US
       Phone: 1-973-335-4917
       Email: dparisi@garden.net

Steve Gibson wrote:

> [for the unabridged version, see Stuart Marshall's post above]
> 
> 
>>>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>>
>>I read through the message with interest, and one single
>>thing helped me reach my decision. Using my mail client
>>(Thunderbird) I noticed straight away that "www.grc.com"
>>was highlighted as a link, whereas "grc.com" was not.
>>
>>For that reason, the massive convenience of just being
>>able to click to open I'd go strongly in favour of
>>www.grc.com.
> 
> 
> Yep.  That's also something I had never fully appreciated.
> I do now, and as I posted in 'grc.thinktank', the move over
> to "www.grc.com" is now underway.  :)
> 

Where is this grc.thinktank? :)

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Tim wrote ...

> Terry L. Webb <tlw@mindless.com> posted:
>  
> > Personally, I find certificates more annoying than comforting.
> 
> In what way?

When they're not transparent, and when I have to decide whether to, or 
not to, proceed if a website has an expired certificate.

> If all goes well (they're up to date, and your browser
> doesn't need to get you to verify if someone is who you thought they were),
> they should be transparent to the user.
> 
> I have found user certificates to be a pain.  I had to configure my browser
> to use it in the way I wanted (prompting me before giving away such
> information, etc.).  Then I couldn't reconfigure it to automatically deal
> with *that* service and my certificate.  And I couldn't use another web
> browser (it was heavily tied into MSIE on this PC, and useless if I wanted
> to use some other PC).

As I said, annoying. :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

"Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
news:cbsi6f$mgi$2@news.grc.com...
> Steve Gibson wrote:
>
> > [for the unabridged version, see Stuart Marshall's post above]
> >
> >
> >>>So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> >>
> >>I read through the message with interest, and one single
> >>thing helped me reach my decision. Using my mail client
> >>(Thunderbird) I noticed straight away that "www.grc.com"
> >>was highlighted as a link, whereas "grc.com" was not.
> >>
> >>For that reason, the massive convenience of just being
> >>able to click to open I'd go strongly in favour of
> >>www.grc.com.
> >
> >
> > Yep.  That's also something I had never fully appreciated.
> > I do now, and as I posted in 'grc.thinktank', the move over
> > to "www.grc.com" is now underway.  :)
> >
>
> Where is this grc.thinktank? :)

Refresh your newsgroups.  It's there.

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

In message <cbsrub$1jp$1@news.grc.com>, Le Flake 
<le_flake@xyzzy.hotmail.com> writes
>Robert Wycoff wrote:
>
>> "Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
>> news:cbsi6f$mgi$2@news.grc.com...
>>
>[humungous snip]
>>>Where is this grc.thinktank? :)
>>  Refresh your newsgroups.  It's there.
>>
>
>Actually Robert, it isn't...

Actually it is. :-)
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=xover&group=grc.thinktank

>on the Netscape 7.1 News client... on two computers, one of them 
>refreshed in the last month.

First post:
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.thinktank
Subject: The GRC Thinktank
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:33:09 -0700
Message-ID: <MPG.1b37650f7ee6f92698bfd9@10.1.0.1>

Well under a month ago, try refreshing again.

>Bizarre... a problem with Netscape, do you think?

Possibly. There's only one other alternative. <VBG>

-- 
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets:
http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.

Kevin A. wrote:

> 
> 
> Possibly. There's only one other alternative. <VBG>
> 

Well... Netscape's not guilty... I opened (shudder)
something nailed shut called OE and subscribed to
news.grc.com - and it revealed that grc.thinktank
has only been up two weeks... after I refreshed
my Netscape news client completely. OE is back in
its coffin.... sorry about that...

--
Le Flake
from deepest, darkest Qu�bec

I had no problem finding the NG after I refreshed Mozilla. (1.7)

Tim wrote:

> Some registrars do actually play the game properly.  In Australia, you have
> to have a registered business name to get a .com.au address, and it has to
> be obviously related to your business name (including domain "names" made
> from company name acronyms).

So what company does "www.trycollection.com.au" belong to without going 
there to see?

Besides, I think .au domains are over valued. The price comparison is 
ridiculous given you are getting nothing different from a .com than a 
..com.au. Lets face it, when politicians use .com/.net/.org for their 
campaign websites that aren't even using their own money... -(

MarkL

Tim wrote:
 
>> Some registrars do actually play the game properly.  In Australia, you have
>> to have a registered business name to get a .com.au address, and it has to
>> be obviously related to your business name (including domain "names" made
>> from company name acronyms).


Mark Livingstone <mlivingstone@iprimus.com.au> posted:
 
> So what company does "www.trycollection.com.au" belong to without going 
> there to see?

Them's the rules [1], I'm not responsible if someone breaks them.  Of
course they were more rigidly applied before other registrars were allowed
to deal with .com.au addresses.  But seeing as it's a "regulation," if
someone were to breach it, there's probably more chance of having a bad
..com.au domain name stripped off the owner than a .com one.

I did a "whois" on them, and I see it's Nestle.  Does that count as not
going there to see?  ;-)

As a point of interest, companies can be registered under a variety of
names, not necessarily the ones that they publicly trade under.  You'll
find businesses registering all sorts of things you wouldn't normally think
to associate with them, just because the want to do something extra.
 
> Besides, I think .au domains are over valued. The price comparison is 
> ridiculous given you are getting nothing different from a .com than a 
> .com.au.

I don't disagree.  I've never understood why they thought they should
charge ten times what other registrars charge for the same service.

1. <http://guide.melbourneit.com.au/index.php?id=7&menuid=1>
   I seem to recall there being some clause about registered business
   names or trademarks, but I'm not that bothered to chase it up.

(MelbourneIT was the *only* registrar for .com.au addresses for a long
time, until some amount of deregulation.  They only *had* one guy doing
..org.au registrations for the whole of Australia; they took an age to get
sorted out.)

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 


There is a pervasive problem in the world of computing. The Microsofts
of the world try to make the computing experience more palatable by
making certain aspects of computing transparent. In my view, making core
elements of computing transparent creates a computer illiterate society.
If we made cars so that the engine starts up just by sitting behind the
steering wheel, then we never learn that the engine can also be started
the old-fashioned way... with a key.

When Microsoft hides files extensions by defualt, the user never learns
what file extension are, what they are for or how to use them.

I think this is part of the issue with grc.com vs http://grc.com vs
www.grc.com

Now, this opens up a new can of worms, maybe. Does changing to
www.grc.com perpetuate the ignorance of users, and does http://grc.com
or just grc.com help enlighten unsophisticated users in a positive way.

When I began registering my own domains, grc.com was a huge influence in
determining how I would register and market my domains. For example, I
much prefer virtuallyhooked.com vs www.virtuallyhooked.com. I much
prefer hypnodan.com vs. www.hypnodan.com, and I feel I am doing the less
savvy computer users a favor by showing them that a URL doesn't
necessarily have to have a www in front of the address. I feel that we
all win when the majority of users are more informed.

I know this is a diffenent angle on the subject, but I thought it was
worthy of mention.

Cu

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Current user wrote ...

> There is a pervasive problem in the world of computing. The Microsofts
> of the world try to make the computing experience more palatable by
> making certain aspects of computing transparent. In my view, making core
> elements of computing transparent creates a computer illiterate society.
> If we made cars so that the engine starts up just by sitting behind the
> steering wheel, then we never learn that the engine can also be started
> the old-fashioned way... with a key.

Actually, the old-fashioned way is with a crank. :)

-- 

Terry Webb ///

Tim wrote:

>>So what company does "www.trycollection.com.au" belong to without going 
>>there to see?

> I did a "whois" on them, and I see it's Nestle.  Does that count as not
> going there to see?  ;-)

It just proves that you don't watch enough ads on Pay TV. It seems like 
every second advert is one of theirs some nights. If you enter online 
they send you six sachets of coffee (two each of three flavours) to try.

For pennance you have to go to the toilet in the middle of the program 
and watch ad breaks instead LOL :-D

MarkL

Steve Gibson wrote:

 > So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????


Well, It is difficult to advice you on this particular matter. I myself 
tend to write "www" before everything when I write a URL into the 
browsers URL bar (I love Mozilla Firefox btw). But, as far as I know, 
most browsers try with "www" before the url if there is no "www" in the 
URL you just typed. So if you just type grc.com and the URL is not found 
the browser will try www.grc.com to see if that works.
So basically is a matter of taste with only one string : I do not know 
if the browsers do the opposite thing which is removing the "www" when 
you type www.grc.com but the URL is grc.com

I hope my contribution was somehow helpfull. I would like to thank you 
Steve for your contributions to safer surfing.

Greetings from Inkaland Peru,
Erich Jess

I can't recall it being mentioned, nor find anything about it with a quick
look, but a hostname like "grc.com" wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to use
cookies (according to the specifications), because it wouldn't have enough
dots in the hostname.

I don't recall coming across any cookies on the website, though, so it
might be a moot point.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

"Tim" <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:9q8uegn9p34s.1jrssiy2z96ew$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I can't recall it being mentioned, nor find anything about it with a quick
> look, but a hostname like "grc.com" wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to use
> cookies (according to the specifications), because it wouldn't have enough
> dots in the hostname.
>
> I don't recall coming across any cookies on the website, though, so it
> might be a moot point.

http://grc.com/privacy.htm

Cookies

 Never Used Them, Never Will - We feel quite bitter about the loss of
cookies because they were such a perfectly cool solution to the problem of
"maintaining state" as a web surfer moves around within a web site. It's
just SO HANDY to be able to temporarily tag someone during a multi-page
transaction - like purchasing for example - instead of needing to get much
more fancy with the implementation of a cookie-free state maintenance
mechanism (as we have on this site.)

But as we all know, the original intention behind cookies has been raped,
exploited, and abused by the sneaky bastards of the Internet . . . so now no
one can use them anymore without raising suspicion. Damn them!!

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Robert Wycoff wrote:

> ... the original intention behind cookies has been raped,
> exploited, and abused by the sneaky bastards of the Internet . . . so now no
> one can use them anymore without raising suspicion. Damn them!!

Ain't that the truth! On the Internet, if it's rapable, exploitable or 
abusable it's a 100% certainty that it will be done.


Robert, I'm just curious... You so often seem to be speaking for GRC, 
are you an official GRC employee? (It doesn't really matter, like I said 
I'm just curious.)

"Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
news:ccjteb$8pe$1@news.grc.com...
> Robert Wycoff wrote:
>
> > ... the original intention behind cookies has been raped,
> > exploited, and abused by the sneaky bastards of the Internet . . . so
now no
> > one can use them anymore without raising suspicion. Damn them!!
>
> Ain't that the truth! On the Internet, if it's rapable, exploitable or
> abusable it's a 100% certainty that it will be done.
>
>
> Robert, I'm just curious... You so often seem to be speaking for GRC,
> are you an official GRC employee? (It doesn't really matter, like I said
> I'm just curious.)

Nope.  I started reading news.grc.com in January, 2000, so I have seen
everything. <g>

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Robert  Wycoff
mention:

> "Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
> news:ccjteb$8pe$1@news.grc.com...
[...]
>> Robert, I'm just curious... You so often seem to be speaking for GRC,
>> are you an official GRC employee? (It doesn't really matter, like I said
>> I'm just curious.)
> 
> Nope.  I started reading news.grc.com in January, 2000, so I have seen
> everything. <g>

And many things more than once... :-))

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

"Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
news:1dkqitywi2i56.dlg@12078.net...
> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Robert  Wycoff
> mention:
>
> > "Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
> > news:ccjteb$8pe$1@news.grc.com...
> [...]
> >> Robert, I'm just curious... You so often seem to be speaking for GRC,
> >> are you an official GRC employee? (It doesn't really matter, like I
said
> >> I'm just curious.)
> >
> > Nope.  I started reading news.grc.com in January, 2000, so I have seen
> > everything. <g>
>
> And many things more than once... :-))

Many times more than once.  That's why I miss the search function for the
newsgroups.  I guess I could just download everything and see if it slows
down W2KPro too much.  But I hate the idea of changing newsreaders after all
these years. <g>

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Robert  Wycoff
mention:

> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> news:1dkqitywi2i56.dlg@12078.net...
>> Wandering aimlessly around grc.news.feedback, I heard Robert  Wycoff
>> mention:
>>
[...]
>>> Nope.  I started reading news.grc.com in January, 2000, so I have seen
>>> everything. <g>
>>
>> And many things more than once... :-))
> 
> Many times more than once.  That's why I miss the search function for the
> newsgroups.  I guess I could just download everything and see if it slows
> down W2KPro too much.  But I hate the idea of changing newsreaders after all
> these years. <g>

You *are* allowed to have more than one reader installed. Give it a
try, you might even find one you like better than OE! :-)

-- 
Don

GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

In article <ccja0f$mav$1@news.grc.com> Robert Wycoff wrote:
> "Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
> news:ccjteb$8pe$1@news.grc.com...
> >
> > Robert, I'm just curious... You so often seem to be speaking for GRC,
> > are you an official GRC employee? (It doesn't really matter, like I said
> > I'm just curious.)
> 
> Nope.  I started reading news.grc.com in January, 2000, so I have seen
> everything. <g>
> 
It might also help Kerry to know that you were simply quoting Steve
Gibson's write-up on this page:  http://grc.com/privacy.htm

-- 
Alan
The universal principle of energy:
Energy has an objective, independent, physical existence and exists 
in the absence of matter, but matter is entirely dependent upon
energy and cannot exist in the absence of energy.  - A.T. Williams
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/book/holoprt2-1.htm >

hermital wrote:

> It might also help Kerry to know that you were simply quoting Steve
> Gibson's write-up on this page:  http://grc.com/privacy.htm

Yeah, I've seen other Robert posts that were obvious quotes from Steve.

Hey, maybe Steve /should/ put Robert on the payroll! :-D He spends 
enough time here doing that stuff! ;)

In article <cckftv$u0h$2@news.grc.com> Kerry Noyes wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I've seen other Robert posts that were obvious quotes from Steve.
> 
> Hey, maybe Steve /should/ put Robert on the payroll! :-D He spends
> enough time here doing that stuff! ;)

He might well consider something like that after he retires.  OTOH, I
wouldn't hold my breath until he retires from the day job he presently
has. ;)

-- 
Alan
The universal principle of energy:
Energy has an objective, independent, physical existence and exists 
in the absence of matter, but matter is entirely dependent upon
energy and cannot exist in the absence of energy.  - A.T. Williams
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/book/holoprt2-1.htm >

"Robert Wycoff" <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:cck577$hhm$1@news.grc.com
> "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> news:1dkqitywi2i56.dlg@12078.net...

<snipped>

> Many times more than once.  That's why I miss the search function for
> the newsgroups.  I guess I could just download everything and see if
> it slows down W2KPro too much.  But I hate the idea of changing
> newsreaders after all these years. <g>

Robert,

Why would you need to change News Readers?  I use OE and can search the
NGs, I've downloaded all of the posts in the NGs I frequent so searching
them isn't a problem.  OS = XP Pro  NR = OE 6.00.2800.1123

-- 

BullBar

"Bullbar" <bullbar@dev.null> wrote in message
news:cckqh6$9f7$1@news.grc.com...
> "Robert Wycoff" <rwycoff@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:cck577$hhm$1@news.grc.com
> > "Don Voorhees" <abuse@12078.net> wrote in message
> > news:1dkqitywi2i56.dlg@12078.net...
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Many times more than once.  That's why I miss the search function for
> > the newsgroups.  I guess I could just download everything and see if
> > it slows down W2KPro too much.  But I hate the idea of changing
> > newsreaders after all these years. <g>
>
> Robert,
>
> Why would you need to change News Readers?  I use OE and can search the
> NGs, I've downloaded all of the posts in the NGs I frequent so searching
> them isn't a problem.  OS = XP Pro  NR = OE 6.00.2800.1123

My experience with downloading all posts from all newsgroups showed that OE
slowed down significantly on my 1gz Celeron with W2KPro and OE6.

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

[For the unexcerpted original, see above]
Robert  Wycoff wrote ...

> My experience with downloading all posts from all newsgroups showed that OE
> slowed down significantly on my 1gz Celeron with W2KPro and OE6.

Robert,

Have you considered exporting all articles to text files?  I use Gravity 
and I periodically export older articles to text files in folders named 
for the various groups.  This allows me to use my text-editor 
(UltraEdit) to search for text strings, it works well and is far faster 
than Gravity's sluggish search.

-- 

Terry Webb ///

"Terry L. Webb" <tlw@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b58666a854595089898a8@news.grc.com...
> [For the unexcerpted original, see above]
> Robert  Wycoff wrote ...
>
> > My experience with downloading all posts from all newsgroups showed that
OE
> > slowed down significantly on my 1gz Celeron with W2KPro and OE6.
>
> Robert,
>
> Have you considered exporting all articles to text files?  I use Gravity
> and I periodically export older articles to text files in folders named
> for the various groups.  This allows me to use my text-editor
> (UltraEdit) to search for text strings, it works well and is far faster
> than Gravity's sluggish search.

I try not to any more "work" than I have to do.  What you describe is a few
more steps to go through, but I am lazy. <g>

-- 
Robert
GRC Newsgroups/Guidelines/No Regrets
http://news.grc.com/news.exe?cmd=article&group=grc.techtalk&item=102758

hermital wrote:

> In article <cckftv$u0h$2@news.grc.com> Kerry Noyes wrote:
> 
>>Yeah, I've seen other Robert posts that were obvious quotes from Steve.
>>
>>Hey, maybe Steve /should/ put Robert on the payroll! :-D He spends
>>enough time here doing that stuff! ;)
> 

Seconed that.
> 
> He might well consider something like that after he retires.  OTOH, I
> wouldn't hold my breath until he retires from the day job he presently
> has. ;)
> 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:09:02 -0500, Robert  Wycoff wrote:

> Cookies
> 
>  Never Used Them, Never Will - We feel quite bitter about the loss of
> cookies because they were such a perfectly cool solution to the problem
> of "maintaining state" as a web surfer moves around within a web site.
> It's just SO HANDY to be able to temporarily tag someone during a
> multi-page transaction - like purchasing for example - instead of
> needing to get much more fancy with the implementation of a cookie-free
> state maintenance mechanism (as we have on this site.)

I tend to agree that they would have been a handy thing to see how someone
is currently going through a site with a simple technique (whether that be
for statistical analysis or shopping), but as well as what the quote went
on to say about they've been exploited, they've also been stupidly relied
on (as usual, someone comes up with impractical ideas for them).

If cookies had only ever been usable in a single session (i.e. they're
only temporarily remembered, but not stored), we wouldn't have had sites
trying to get us to customise our experience with cookies (because it'd be
pointless), and tying us to using the same browser with the same site
(they'd have to do that sort of thing server-side, and that'd eliminate
many of the "this site only works with" problems).

Exploits aside, it's a pain to have to conform yourself to a website each
time you use it, because you use different PCs and browsers, when you just
want to look at some information.

There'd be far less exploits, too, if they were designed better and
browser authors stuck to the specs.  e.g. If it were not *possible* to use
cookies over different sessions, or between different hosts, most of the
exploits couldn't be done.

-- 
My from address is fake, but the reply-to is real, though temporary.  But I
really don't want private replies to usenet postings.  Reply to the group.

On 2004-07-10, Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:09:02 -0500, Robert  Wycoff wrote:
>
>> Cookies
>> 
>>  Never Used Them, Never Will
<>
>
> If cookies had only ever been usable in a single session (i.e. they're
> only temporarily remembered, but not stored), we wouldn't have had sites
> trying to get us to customise our experience with cookies (because it'd be
> pointless), and tying us to using the same browser with the same site
> (they'd have to do that sort of thing server-side, and that'd eliminate
> many of the "this site only works with" problems).

What 'this site only works with' problems are related to cookies ?

> Exploits aside, it's a pain to have to conform yourself to a website each
> time you use it, because you use different PCs and browsers, when you just
> want to look at some information.

What pains do you have to go through ?

> There'd be far less exploits, too, if they were designed better and
> browser authors stuck to the specs.  e.g. If it were not *possible* to use
> cookies over different sessions, or between different hosts, most of the
> exploits couldn't be done.

What browsers *intentionally* don't conform and cause all these cookie
based exploits ? What are all the exploits that would be solved ?

Most modern browsers allow you great flexibilty in managing your
cookies. I'm not sure I see what the problem is...
-- 
Bloated Elvis

Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:

>> If cookies had only ever been usable in a single session (i.e. they're
>> only temporarily remembered, but not stored), we wouldn't have had sites
>> trying to get us to customise our experience with cookies (because it'd be
>> pointless), and tying us to using the same browser with the same site
>> (they'd have to do that sort of thing server-side, and that'd eliminate
>> many of the "this site only works with" problems).

Bloated Elvis <bloated_elvis@stuffing.nowhere.com> posted:
 
> What 'this site only works with' problems are related to cookies?

There are plenty of sites that will *only* work if you accept their cookies
(not work with less functionality without them, but won't work at all).  If
cookies had never been seen as some way to do what they're hoping to
acheive, and the only way they want to consider doing it, we wouldn't have
those sites giving you the accept them or else ultimatum.
 
>> Exploits aside, it's a pain to have to conform yourself to a website each
>> time you use it, because you use different PCs and browsers, when you just
>> want to look at some information.

> What pains do you have to go through?

You've never come across some site that inserts masses of crap that you
might want to see until you customise it (removing the dross), and it
stores your customisation in the cookie.  I seem to recall that my ISP does
that with their <http://www.optusnet.com.au/> homepage.  I think Google was
another that did something like that (you had to use their cookies if you
wanted to change the filtering applied to your searches).
 
>> There'd be far less exploits, too, if they were designed better and
>> browser authors stuck to the specs.  e.g. If it were not *possible* to use
>> cookies over different sessions, or between different hosts, most of the
>> exploits couldn't be done.

> What browsers *intentionally* don't conform and cause all these cookie
> based exploits? What are all the exploits that would be solved?

I thought it was rather obvious from my example.  Most of the cookie
exploits that I'm aware of are tracking (collating data about you across
various sites).  If cookies could *only* work with one site, that couldn't
happen.  You wouldn't have doubleclick knowing about what you did on
example.com, for example. 

I'd have extended the restrictions very heavily, so that site actually
meant site.  You'd actually have to be on a doubleclick page, for
doubleclick to know what you're doing.  Not allowing a doubleclick cookie
for a doubleclick image on an example.com page to set cookies.

> Most modern browsers allow you great flexibilty in managing your
> cookies. I'm not sure I see what the problem is...

So called managing of cookies is quite crap.  Much of the "managing" is
cleaning up after you've exchanged them (it's too late by then, the damage
is done).

What's the first thing that people do when hit with a series of cookie
prompts?  Select the don't ask me again option.  And what does that
generally do?  Allow those cookies without question.

-- 
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary).  But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Tim wrote:
> Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If cookies had only ever been usable in a single session (i.e.
>>> they're only temporarily remembered, but not stored), we wouldn't
>>> have had sites trying to get us to customise our experience with
>>> cookies (because it'd be pointless), and tying us to using the same
>>> browser with the same site (they'd have to do that sort of thing
>>> server-side, and that'd eliminate many of the "this site only works
>>> with" problems).
>
> Bloated Elvis <bloated_elvis@stuffing.nowhere.com> posted:
>
>> What 'this site only works with' problems are related to cookies?
>
> There are plenty of sites that will *only* work if you accept their
> cookies (not work with less functionality without them, but won't
> work at all).  If cookies had never been seen as some way to do what
> they're hoping to acheive, and the only way they want to consider
> doing it, we wouldn't have those sites giving you the accept them or
> else ultimatum.

I agree, these sites are generally unpleasant.

>>> Exploits aside, it's a pain to have to conform yourself to a
>>> website each time you use it, because you use different PCs and
>>> browsers, when you just want to look at some information.
>
>> What pains do you have to go through?
>
> You've never come across some site that inserts masses of crap that
> you might want to see until you customise it (removing the dross),
> and it
> stores your customisation in the cookie.  I seem to recall that my
> ISP does that with their <http://www.optusnet.com.au/> homepage.  I
> think Google was another that did something like that (you had to use
> their cookies if you wanted to change the filtering applied to your
> searches).

Hold on, you're complaining about this? Let's get this straight, you're
complaining about cookies because the settings stored via a cookie isn't
portable between different computers and browsers?

As far as google's cookie, I never see anything about it, and accepting or
denying it has never changed my google experience beyond loss of the
benefits of the cookie (advanced settings, permanent tracking, etc :P).

The alternative, lacking cross-session persisting cookies, would be a login
each time you visited a site, with URL or form field saved state. I'd rather
have a cookie, thanks.

>>> There'd be far less exploits, too, if they were designed better and
>>> browser authors stuck to the specs.  e.g. If it were not *possible*
>>> to use cookies over different sessions, or between different hosts,
>>> most of the exploits couldn't be done.
>
>> What browsers *intentionally* don't conform and cause all these
>> cookie based exploits? What are all the exploits that would be
>> solved?
>
> I thought it was rather obvious from my example.  Most of the cookie
> exploits that I'm aware of are tracking (collating data about you
> across various sites).  If cookies could *only* work with one site,
> that couldn't happen.  You wouldn't have doubleclick knowing about
> what you did on example.com, for example.
>
> I'd have extended the restrictions very heavily, so that site actually
> meant site.  You'd actually have to be on a doubleclick page, for
> doubleclick to know what you're doing.  Not allowing a doubleclick
> cookie for a doubleclick image on an example.com page to set cookies.

Have you used any contemporary web-browsers? Oh, IE 6 or Mozilla 1.3+
(approx) and probably Opera? I guess you missed the advanced cookie
preferences in IE and Mozilla that allow different settings for 3rd party
cookies.

>> Most modern browsers allow you great flexibilty in managing your
>> cookies. I'm not sure I see what the problem is...
>
> So called managing of cookies is quite crap.  Much of the "managing"
> is cleaning up after you've exchanged them (it's too late by then,
> the damage is done).

I'd suggest looking at the options out there for managing cookies before
making such statements. And these "options" aren't even 3rd party addon
cookie controllers.

> What's the first thing that people do when hit with a series of cookie
> prompts?  Select the don't ask me again option.  And what does that
> generally do?  Allow those cookies without question.

What prompts? You decide a general preference and if an individual site
won't work within those bounds you can either refuse to use it or add a
per-site exception. I _know_ IE and Mozilla are both capable of that, at
least.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.

On 2004-07-11, Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:
> Tim <tim@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If cookies had only ever been usable in a single session (i.e. they're
>>> only temporarily remembered, but not stored), we wouldn't have had sites
>>> trying to get us to customise our experience with cookies (because it'd be
>>> pointless), and tying us to using the same browser with the same site
>>> (they'd have to do that sort of thing server-side, and that'd eliminate
>>> many of the "this site only works with" problems).
>
> Bloated Elvis <bloated_elvis@stuffing.nowhere.com> posted:
>  
>> What 'this site only works with' problems are related to cookies?
>
> There are plenty of sites that will *only* work if you accept their cookies

But, it's 'thier website (tm)'.

IF they didn't have cookies, perhaps they would just require you to log
in to deliver the content, if that's what they wanted. IMHO, cookies are
much easir to deal with. Accept the cookie, discard it later. Woohoo.
Big deal.
>  
>>> Exploits aside, it's a pain to have to conform yourself to a website each
>>> time you use it, because you use different PCs and browsers, when you just
>>> want to look at some information.
>
>> What pains do you have to go through?
>
> You've never come across some site that inserts masses of crap that you
> might want to see until you customise it (removing the dross), and it
> stores your customisation in the cookie.  I seem to recall that my ISP does
> that with their <http://www.optusnet.com.au/> homepage.  I think Google was
> another that did something like that (you had to use their cookies if you
> wanted to change the filtering applied to your searches).

Uhm, yeah. If you want google to remember your search preferences, it
would have to have *some* way of knowing it was you searching. Hence a
cookie. Sorry, I don't seem to have the kinds of problems you describe
above. Maybe I am not going to the right sights :-O

>>> There'd be far less exploits, too, if they were designed better and
>>> browser authors stuck to the specs.  e.g. If it were not *possible* to use
>>> cookies over different sessions, or between different hosts, most of the
>>> exploits couldn't be done.
>
>> What browsers *intentionally* don't conform and cause all these cookie
>> based exploits? What are all the exploits that would be solved?
>
> I thought it was rather obvious from my example.

Not to me.

> Most of the cookie
> exploits that I'm aware of are tracking (collating data about you across
> various sites).
<>
You call that an 'exploit' ? Well, no wonder it wasn't clear to me.

>> Most modern browsers allow you great flexibilty in managing your
>> cookies. I'm not sure I see what the problem is...
>
> So called managing of cookies is quite crap.  Much of the "managing" is
> cleaning up after you've exchanged them (it's too late by then, the damage
> is done).

What damage ? What crap ? I think it's pretty easy to manage cookies,
with things like 'only accept cookies from originating site', 'clear
allcookies', etc...

> What's the first thing that people do when hit with a series of cookie
> prompts?  Select the don't ask me again option.  And what does that
> generally do?  Allow those cookies without question.
>
So people are apathetic or ignorant. Those are the same people that say
'cool, britney spears nude in my email...let me open it !'
*shrugs* Whatcha gonna do ??
-- 
Bloated Elvis

I don't really care as long as I end up at your website.

The less I have to type the better, but clicking on a link is always one
button.

"Kerry Noyes" <kerrynoyes@hotmail.comRMOVE> wrote in message
news:cbsi1f$mgi$1@news.grc.com...
> Tony Klamm wrote:
>
> > Take your cue from Madison ave and stick with plain old simple grc.com.
> > Makes for a stronger branding.  BTW (rhetorical ?, I'll look for myself)
> > have you reserved gibsonresearch.com or gibsonresearchcorporation.com
and
> > the infinite variations thereof?  Or do you just hope that google will
help
> > you maintain your grip on your name.  All that reserving to protect your
> > name on the web can become expensive.  AFAIK microsoftsucks.com has not
been
> > reserved.  Any takers?  As the internet becomes almost completely
> > commercialized, DNS and ICANN should probably take this respect for a
name
> > into account in DNS next incarnation.  But, I digress, and I quit.
>
> Microsoftsucks.com? Don't you check your facts before posting:
>

Actually, I did check my facts before posting.  Just not as thoroughly.  At
the time of my original post, I typed it into my browser and got nothing.
Maybe if I had double-checked or checked whois, I wouldn't have embarassed
myself with that example.  My point was, and is, I know Steve has his
detractors and I was kind of curious how far he goes to protect his name.

Tony

>
>     Organization:
>        Whitehouse.com Inc.
>        Whitehouse.com Inc
>        295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
>        New York, NY 10007
>        US
>        Phone: 1-973-335-4917
>        Email: dparisi@garden.net
>
>     Registrar Name....: Register.com
>     Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
>     Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com
>
>     Domain Name: MICROSOFTSUCKS.COM
>
>        Created on..............: Thu, May 21, 1998
>        Expires on..............: Fri, May 20, 2005
>        Record last updated on..: Mon, Apr 12, 2004
>
>     Administrative Contact:
>        Whitehouse.com Inc.
>        Whitehouse.com Inc
>        295 Greenwich Street (Suite 184)
>        New York, NY 10007
>        US
>        Phone: 1-973-335-4917
>        Email: dparisi@garden.net

 From Steve Gibson on 19/Jun/2004 19:49:
> 
> So what do you guys think?
> 
> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www) 
> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no 
> one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL 
> shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen, 
> all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external 
> links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other 
> format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that 
> process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the 
> sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could 
> change them.)
> 
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> 

Sorry Steve, this is a bit late I know, I've only just started reading your groups!

It seems correct that both www.grc.com and grc.com should be valid. After all, 
grc.com is your domain, correctly speaking www. is a subdomain from that. 
However, people generally expect the www. to go to the web site and ignore the 
none www. In fact most web hosts are set up to allow both to point to the web site.

-- 
Julian Knight,  http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
  Sheffield, United Kingdom
  Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
  Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight

In grc.news.feedback Julian Knight wrote:

>  From Steve Gibson on 19/Jun/2004 19:49:
>> 
>> So what do you guys think?
>> 
>> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www) 
>> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no 
[ ]
>> 
>> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
>> 
> 
> Sorry Steve, this is a bit late I know, I've only just started
> reading your groups! 

Ancient history <G>.  Things do move much faster around here.

> It seems correct that both www.grc.com and grc.com should be
> valid. After all, grc.com is your domain, correctly speaking www.

Anyway, welcome to the GRC newsgroups.  You can find some great 
information at the link in my sig.


-- 
GRC Newsgroups/Guides:  http://www.imilly.com/noregrets.htm#contents

Hi,

I've recently joined so may have missed any feedback that you have flushed 
away. Please excuse this if it is repetition, but I have been looking at the 
use of www myself and think there are some good uses for it.

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
> Everyone,
>
> I'm in a quandary.
>
> Do I enforce a redirect FOR the use of "www." or just for
> "grc.com".  The reason this matters, aside from just feeling
> right, is that as I start thinking about marketing SpinRite v6.0,
> I'd like to have a uniform domain name for everyone to use in
> their URLs.  Until now I have been FORCING myself to use the
> "www." prefix, under the feeling that it's correct and expected.
>
> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's
> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think,
> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that,
> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?
>
> Google currently has a bias toward the "www" prefix.  It shows
> about 760 incoming links to us aimed at "www.grc.com" as opposed
> to 556 for just "grc.com".  Query:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awww.grc.com
> http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Agrc.com

I don't think this is *Google* being biased. I think it is the *people 
linking to you* that are being biased. Google is just showing you the bias 
that others are using. This data is all from external pages.

When I looked just now you had about 950 pages linking to www.grc.com and 
764 linking to grc.com (obviously these stats are likely to change). In the 
time taken for me to reply to your news post you have gone from having 42 
percent of total links pointing to grc.com to 44 percent of total links 
pointing to grc.com.

So whatever you have been doing has only caused a 2 percent swing in your 
favor. You are still 7 percent away from making grc.com the favored format 
for inbound links.

> But on the other hand, the Google Toolbar appears to strongly
> favor the NON www prefix for most of our page ranks.
>
> page rank 7 for http://grc.com/default.htm
> page rank 6 for http://www.grc.com/default.htm
>
> ... which I think means that higher-ranks pages are using
> "grc.com" rather than "www.grc.com".

You could be right in thinking that higher-rank pages are linking to 
grc.com, however page rank doesn't necesarily come from external pages.

SEO tactics often involve getting some of your webpages to donate page rank 
to others. I don't think that you are doing this, by the way. Not here 
anyway.

I think that page rank can also come from people with Google Toolbar voting 
for or against a page. If you prefer grc.com then your most avid fans 
probably know that and browse to the non-www version. Any votes they make 
for your page would probably boost the non-www version above the www 
version.

>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So what do you guys think?
>
> Whatever I decide, the "other" format of URL (www or not www)
> would be transparently converted to the "preferred" one.  So no
> one's existing links would be broken by this. But the final URL
> shown in the browser URL would *always* be the one we've chosen,
> all internal links would be consistent, all NEWLY created external
> links would be consistent, and eventually the "disfavored other
> format" external links would be fixed.  (And I could hasten that
> process by having my staff start contacting the webmasters of the
> sites with the disfavored links and asking them if they could
> change them.)
>
> So ... "www.grc.com" or just "grc.com" ?????
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson... dealing with a gazillion post SR6 release things!

I can see pros and cons in trying to force a change.

On the pro-side:
* By having all incoming links point to grc.com you get (up to) 1,714 
incoming links to a single page. This could boost your page rank.
* Redirecting from www.grc.com to grc.com would stop new links having www in 
them so the (950/764) balance would swing over to the non-www version even 
if you didn't contact external webmasters.

On the con-side:
* You can not *fix* external links. You are relying on other webmasters to 
update the 950 pages with links you don't like.
* External links to www.grc.com will not eventually be fixed without 
invervention. If your server redirects pages then no broken link will 
appear. The 950 webmasters probably won't even notice your changes.
* Getting your staff to contact webmasters will have dimininishing returns. 
I've spent ages trying to get people to update links to my site. Some get 
changed - some don't. Some people even tell me they don't run the website 
any more. My only hope there is that their site falls off of the internet 
when their host realises it is unmaintained.
* The "www" subdomain does have a couple of advantages that you will loose 
if you eventually abandon it.

I've just said that www has some advantages, so I better point them out to 
avoid the obvious "what are they then" reply:

1) Newsgroup & mail readers often use "www." to detect a web URL. At the 
moment you can post clickable links to any of your website pages. If you 
drop the "www" then people either have to copy and paste a link into a 
browser or use HTML format to email people or post to mailing lists. I 
believe that you dislike HTML email because it can be abused. I also think 
it is excessivly bulky and slows down the net for no good reason.

2) A "www" pseudo-subdomain will help you provide advanced search on your 
website if you ever add subdomains for your projects (eg "wizmo.grc.com" for 
Wizmo).

A Google site-search (or Google Toolbar site-search) using "grc.com" would 
show up pages in both your main site and any specialist subdomain sites. The 
"www" pseudo-subdomain can be used to illiminate any subdomain panes and 
show only the pages in your main website.

Although you might not want to create a subdomain for each of your projects 
(like Wizmo) you might find that you want to add some for other reasons. 
Your website has a large variety of useful technical things on it but it is 
possible that a newbie web user could become confused by the information 
overload and not bother reading it all.

Your website has a lot of technical content on it and some newbie webusers 
could possibly benifit from a simple version of the site that cuts things 
down to the basics.

A subdomain could also become the homepage of a campaign. For example on 
your Distributed Reflection DoS Attack page you mention how ISPs could block 
fraudulent packets to make it impossible kill that sort of attack. And point 
out how this would help protect ISP customers as they would not be useful if 
attacked. Having read the page, I know realise that it is in my own interest 
to attempt to get my own ISP to follow your idea, but because your comment 
is burried deep inside a highly technical article I don't see how I can get 
other people to join in and support me. An "idot proof" page or better still 
a subdomain that is aimed at telling newbie ISP users how to avoid being 
hacked and zombified could present this idea as its main topic. (This idea 
itself is a bit off-topic so I'll probaby post it as a reply to your DrDoS 
article to see if anyone else is organising a campaign to get ISPs block IP 
packet spoofing at source.)

You may or may not decide that is a worth reason for adding a subdomain, but 
I hope I have shown you that you *might* have a use for one in the future 
and that the www might help you filter it out and only show your main 
results to people who just want the technical stuff.

David Shepheard

(fake email address - please reply on-list) 

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:25:52 +0100, "David Shepheard"
<notarealname@notarealisp.com> wrote:

>* You can not *fix* external links. You are relying on other webmasters to 
>update the 950 pages with links you don't like.

Not that Steve would want to bother with it, but he could email the
webmasters of these sites:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=link%3Awww.grc.com&btnG=Search

and ask them to change their links.

-- 
js

"john .s. smith" <reply_here@local.invalid> wrote
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:25:52 +0100, "David Shepheard" wrote:
>>* You can not *fix* external links. You are relying on other webmasters to
>>update the 950 pages with links you don't like.
>
> Not that Steve would want to bother with it, but he could email the
> webmasters of these sites:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=link%3Awww.grc.com&btnG=Search
>
> and ask them to change their links.

Steve did already say in his news post that he was considering telling his 
staff to do exactly that. I haven't seen an update so I don't know if he 
bothered doing it in the end.
-- 
David Shepheard
(please reply in list as email address is fake) 

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:39:22 +0100, "David Shepheard"
<notarealname@notarealisp.com> wrote:

>Steve did already say in his news post that he was considering telling his 
>staff to do exactly that. I haven't seen an update so I don't know if he 
>bothered doing it in the end.

Ooops! I don't always keep up with feedback messages. Sorry.

-- 
js

[for the unabridged version, see David Shepheard's post above]

Hi David,

Nice to have you among us.

The ultimate decision was to switch over to "www.grc.com" 
formally.  About two months ago, due to some other requirements 
of some forthcoming technology, we also began forcibly 
redirecting any incoming "grc.com" requests to "www.grc.com".  

So, what visitors will always see in their browser's URL address 
will be the "www.grc.com" version and hopefully over time the 
world will migrate to that single domain for our web stuff.

:)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

[for the unabridged version, see David Shepheard's post above]

> Steve did already say in his news post that he was considering
> telling his staff to do exactly that. I haven't seen an update
> so I don't know if he bothered doing it in the end.

I never pursued that.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

"Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote:
> [for the unabridged version, see David Shepheard's post above]
>
> Hi David,
>
> Nice to have you among us.

Thanks for the welcome.

I'm always glad to find someone on the Internet who wears a cape and has his 
underwear on the outside! <g>

> The ultimate decision was to switch over to "www.grc.com"
> formally.  About two months ago, due to some other requirements
> of some forthcoming technology, we also began forcibly
> redirecting any incoming "grc.com" requests to "www.grc.com".

Is that an industrial secret of yours? If not I'd be curious to know if that 
is in-house technolgy or something other webmasters should know about.

> So, what visitors will always see in their browser's URL address
> will be the "www.grc.com" version and hopefully over time the
> world will migrate to that single domain for our web stuff.

Well you do have another 208 links to the grc.com domain since your original 
news post, so it looks like some people are continuing to add the short URL. 
I don't know if there is someway to sort Google's results to see if any of 
the pages linking to grc.com were created in the last two months.

I also don't know if it is worth your while contacting the webmasters 
responisble for the 764 pages linking to "grc.com". However, if you do want 
to do this, you might be able to get a few people on your newsgroups to 
volunteer to help contact some of the webmasters. I'd only pick people you 
know well if I were you and wanted to do this.
-- 
David Shepheard
(please reply in list as email address is fake) 

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 02:48:27 +0100, "David Shepheard"
<notarealname@notarealisp.com> wrote:

>I also don't know if it is worth your while contacting the webmasters 
>responisble for the 764 pages linking to "grc.com". However, if you do want 
>to do this, you might be able to get a few people on your newsgroups to 
>volunteer to help contact some of the webmasters. I'd only pick people you 
>know well if I were you and wanted to do this.

Another alternative would be for volunteers to compile a list of
contact addresses and Steve or his workers could take it from there.

-- 
js

"David Shepheard" <notarealname@notarealisp.com> wrote in message 
news:e83gmm$nt8$1@news.grc.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've recently joined so may have missed any feedback that you have flushed
> away. Please excuse this if it is repetition, but I have been looking at the
> use of www myself and think there are some good uses for it.
>
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b3e2a8e9bd7cdfe98c020@10.1.0.1...
>> Everyone,
>>
>> I'm in a quandary.
>>
>> Do I enforce a redirect FOR the use of "www." or just for
>> "grc.com".  The reason this matters, aside from just feeling
>> right, is that as I start thinking about marketing SpinRite v6.0,
>> I'd like to have a uniform domain name for everyone to use in
>> their URLs.  Until now I have been FORCING myself to use the
>> "www." prefix, under the feeling that it's correct and expected.
>>
>> But I just don't like it. I much prefer just "grc.com". It's
>> minimalist, short, sweet, and it's the way I and, I think,
>> everyone else thinks of and refers to us.  But, despite that,
>> should a WEB SERVER be designated with "www"?
>>

Is not the www.grc.com or just grc.com a DNS issue??

If your DNS is set up correctly, either one will default to the one you "prefer"
Example, my "hobby site."

http://95isalive.com/
http://www.95isalive.com/

Click either link, they both go to the same place.

-- 
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage

[for the unabridged version, see David Shepheard's post above]

> > The ultimate decision was to switch over to "www.grc.com"
> > formally.  About two months ago, due to some other requirements
> > of some forthcoming technology, we also began forcibly
> > redirecting any incoming "grc.com" requests to "www.grc.com".
> 
> Is that an industrial secret of yours? If not I'd be curious to
> know if that is in-house technolgy or something other webmasters
> should know about.

Ah.  Not a big deal, though it was/is one of the prime 
motivations for finally giving GRC some good navigation 
features.

Before long GRC will be automagically putting a notice into the 
"masthead" of people who are browsing here with third-party 
cookies enabled.  I am now detecting many aspects about the 
browser and cookie-status of our visitors, as you can see 
summarized in this developmental R&D page ...

http://www.grc.com/cookies/stats.htm

The problem was that I didn't want to be giving people cookies 
for BOTH the grc.com and www.grc.com domains, since they are 
distinct.  And since I had previously been nudging people over 
toward "www.grc.com" by making all internal site links 
"www.grc.com" instead of relative, I didn't want people arriving 
here at "grc.com", receiving cookies, then being moved over to 
"www.grc.com" and receiving additional cookies.

So I decided to bite the bullet and 301 redirect all incoming 
visitors to the www flavor.  :)

>---------------------------------------------------------------

David -- I'm not ignoring all of your postings, but yours are 
extensive and I want to give them the time and attention they 
deserve.  I'll catch up and do that early tomorrow.  :)

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Steve.

"Steve Gibson" <news06_@_grc.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1f0fa4c12d26bec2c94@4.79.142.203...
> [for the unabridged version, see David Shepheard's post above]
>
>> > The ultimate decision was to switch over to "www.grc.com"
>> > formally.  About two months ago, due to some other requirements
>> > of some forthcoming technology, we also began forcibly
>> > redirecting any incoming "grc.com" requests to "www.grc.com".
>>
>> Is that an industrial secret of yours? If not I'd be curious to
>> know if that is in-house technolgy or something other webmasters
>> should know about.
>
> Ah.  Not a big deal, though it was/is one of the prime
> motivations for finally giving GRC some good navigation
> features.
>
> Before long GRC will be automagically putting a notice into the
> "masthead" of people who are browsing here with third-party
> cookies enabled.  I am now detecting many aspects about the
> browser and cookie-status of our visitors, as you can see
> summarized in this developmental R&D page ...
>
> http://www.grc.com/cookies/stats.htm
>
> The problem was that I didn't want to be giving people cookies
> for BOTH the grc.com and www.grc.com domains, since they are
> distinct.  And since I had previously been nudging people over
> toward "www.grc.com" by making all internal site links
> "www.grc.com" instead of relative, I didn't want people arriving
> here at "grc.com", receiving cookies, then being moved over to
> "www.grc.com" and receiving additional cookies.

Thanks for that. I've heard a similar thing about cookies from a guy that 
developed a redirection utility for a webmasters forum where I'm a 
moderator. I didn't guess it was the same problem he was fixing and thought 
you might have found something else

> So I decided to bite the bullet and 301 redirect all incoming
> visitors to the www flavor.  :)

I bet it took ages to do that. I manually put the header and footer into all 
the pages of my website (as I don't know PHP yet) and it took me days to do 
a "minor" update when I only had about 100 pages!

>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> David -- I'm not ignoring all of your postings, but yours are
> extensive and I want to give them the time and attention they
> deserve.  I'll catch up and do that early tomorrow.  :)

Thanks Steve. I'm afraid I've always been prone for outputting a large 
quantity of words! (Or should I say "I talk to much" as that is quicker to 
read! ;-) )

Hope there is some constructive critisism and useful feedback in there. Feel 
free to ingore any useless stuff.
-- 
David Shepheard
(please reply in list as email address is fake)