Virtual Hosts don't work with "www"
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Tue Feb 20 01:29:28 UTC 2007
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:43:02AM +0100,
> Jarek Buczy?ski <jaro80 at gmail.com> wrote
> a message of 48 lines which said:
>> www CNAME @
> While I cannot be positive that your problem comes from here, I can
> say that this is a bad idea. It makes "www" identical to the domain,
> for every practical purpose (SRV, MX, etc)
So what? If someone is doing an SRV or MX query for www.example.com,
chances are that what they _really_ meant is example.com, so why make it
more difficult than necessary for them?
Granted, if one *must* differentiate between example.com and
www.example.com on an Rtype-by-Rtype basis, then CNAME is not an option.
But in my experience that tends to be the exception rather than the
rule. Using CNAME means you have one less A record to update if you
re-address your server. It also means there is zero ambiguity with
respect to forward/reverse record consistency. So from a manageability
perspective, CNAME is preferred.
More information about the bind-users