I have a blog at http://www.futuristiccreativity.tk but if I type it without www on the browser, i.e., http://futuristiccreativity.tk it shows up error loading the blog.
Is there any possible solution for this redirection?
Well, this is one of the most common problems of bloggers who use blogger for publishing their content and set up a blog. I too suffer from this the most.
Recently, I made a way out of this problem. Though Google support tells to add A records which point to these IPs to redirect to the www version of the site, that doesn't work for me:
216.293.32.21
216.293.34.21
216.293.36.21
216.293.38.21
But a simple way out is, remove all these A records and have just one record.
Now the solution, Go to your domain registrar dashboard and add an A record whose host is # and points to 174.129.25.170 IP. And all your problem will be gone within some time(it may take up to 24hrs for DNS to migrate the preferences)
Check out my blog post to have a better understanding.
Related
The question is pretty clear I think, but I will elaborate on why I'm asking it.
I created a little blog engine based on OneNote. Basically, the blog configuration asks for an access to OneNote. Then the user chooses a section under which the blog posts are stored.
There is a cron script that will use all these informations to automatically get new pages, fetch the medias and cache every, and finally display the posts.
I chose OneNote because I own three Windows 8 computers and a Windows Phone, so OneNote was an easy choice, as I didn't want to get an other application to manage my blog.
There is still a lot to do (as always with softwares...), but I want to make this more or less an open source project, so that other people can install it on their websites and link it directely to OneNote.
The only "big" obstacle for this now is that authentication in the OneNote API needs to register the application on the Live Connect, and specify a redirect domain. So every user wishing to use this blog engine on their server will have to register their own application... That will look complicated just for a blog, especially if you're not tech-savvy.
Is there a way to "skip" or work around this requirement, even if it requires the user to make the section public (as it is for a blog, this doesn't seem too much to ask) ?
Thank you in advance,
Cheers
Sounds like an awesome project! When you get it released be sure to let us know at #OneNoteDev.
Unfortunately, at this time there's no way to circumvent the requirement for Live Connect OAuth configuration. You could offer a hosted variant so only you need to worry about the LiveID configuration.
A customer asked to be able to call my web app from his domain for hiding my domain name.
I remembed that several years ago it was used to use an hidden iframe ... is there a more "modern" solution?
The only better solution is to actually host the site on the domain that you want it to appear on.
He might want to consider setting his DNS to point a subdomain at your servers if you are unwilling to install the application on his.
Okay, here's the situation. I've had a bluehost account for several years and am happy enough with it I'm unwilling to move without a really good reason. However, I'm finding more and more that the best solution to the main use for one of my domains is to have a fairly simple rails app running to cover that.
The rails app could easily be front-ended by two forms on the landing page, each with a couple of follow-up pages, but I want the URL always to show "mysite.com" rather than "myapp.heroku.com". I also want to continue to use my email addresses with this site. I don't expect the app to see heavy usage, and am unlikely to go over the 750 hr/mo free time on heroku.
I currently use Rails 3, and would likely have trouble stepping back to rails 2 in my thinking. I'm also not very good at programming in rails, or anything else for that matter, so I'd like not to confuse myself any more than necessary.
So what's my solution here? Transfer the whole domain to Heroku? Embed partials of the app in the landing page? Can I keep email addresses working with Heroku? Can I transfer just the www.mysite.com to heroku, but have everything else involved with the domain hit bluehost?
I'm open to advice.
Heroku doesn't provide any email hosting/sending itself - so you either bring your own or use one of the Heroku addons like SendGrid for sending mail from your application.
Of course, you can just leave you email etc with Bluehost provided that you can modify the DNS and change your www record to be a CNAME to proxy.heroku.com (after you've added the custom domain addon to your Heroku application)
I just did this with blue host and heroku where I hosted my app on heroku and wanted to keep email on blue host. I am using DNS Made easy so your mileage may vary but I had to create an A record pointing to the ip address 69.89.31.63, you name the A record mail.yourdomain.com
and then create an mx record pointing to 69.89.31.63. I am on the cedar stack.
This question already has an answer here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What’s the point in having “www” in a URL?
Hello, I have little to no experience owning a website but I am willing to learn all that there is to this process. However I am frustrated because I am constantly blocked by simple problems.
I just uploaded my first index.html page which is basically a background color and a title image. I put my favicon in the public_html directory right next to index.html. I immediately notice that it does not work. I also notice that I have typed http://website.com in the URL bar. I type "www" before "website" and the favicon shows up. I hit back and the favicon is blank again. What is the difference between the non-www version of the site and the www version of the site? Why does the favicon not show up? What other differences are there? Should I disable the non-www site like many professional sites seem to do? How do I do this? What are the advantages and disadvantages, if any?
Thank you.
The www-subdomain is just a convention amongst websites to indicate this address points to a World Wide Web server.
For example,
google.com is the top domainname of
the Google company.
www.google.com indicates this is the
domain name for the World Wide Web,
ftp.google.com indicates this is
probably an ftp-server.
But as it is just a convention, and the average user uses the internet mainly for www, most servers configure their http://domain.com to be aliases to http://www.domain.com.
Why the favicon on your site only shows up for the www-version and not for the topdomain, depends on your html and your server configuration. Can you post some code or link to your site?
The fully qualified domain names are different. So they are different websites.
Usually the two hostnames will point at the same IP address, and the server will be confiured to either serve up the same content for both or redirect from one to the other.
Redirecting from on to the other (and which way round you do it doesn't really matter) is generally considered good practice as it lets you be consistent (and saves you from issues such as XHR requests to a specific hostname breaking when used on the alternative).
The favicon not working is likely caused by your browser having cached that http://www.example.com/favicon.ico didn't exist and it not having yet checked again. http://example.com/favicon.ico, OTOH, is a different URI so it would have checked it the first time you went there (which was after you created the icon file).
Typically most of the server domain manager software like Cpanel and Plex are configured to serve same site for both domains. Cpanel do have a public_html and www separately, but same content.
I have an ASP.NET web site technology that I use for scores of clients. Each client gets their own web site (a copy of the core site that can then be customized). The web site includes a fair amount of content - articles on health and wellness - that is loaded from a central content server. I can load the html for these articles from a central content server by copying from the content server and then inserting the text into the page as it is produced.
Easy so far.
However, these articles have image references that point back to the central server. The problem that I have is due to the fact that these sites are always accessed (every page) via an SSL link. When a page with an external image reference is loaded, the visitor receives a message that the page "contains both secure and insecure elements" (or something similar) because the images come from the (unsecured) server. There is really no way around this.
So, in your judgment, is it better to:
A) just put a cert on the content server so I can get the images over SSL? Are there problems there due to the page content having two certs? Any other thoughts?
B) change the links to the article presentation page so they don't use SSL? They don't need SSL but the left side of the page contains lots of links to pages that do need - all of which are now relative links. Making them all absolute links is grody because each client's site has its own URL so all links would need to be generated in code (blech).
C) Something else that I haven't thought of? This is where I am hoping that someone with experience in the area will offer something brilliant!
NOTE: I know that I can not get rid of the warning about insecure elements - it is there for a reason. I am just wondering if anyone else has experience in this area and has a reasonable compromise or some new insight.
Not sure how feasable this is but it may be possible to use a rewrite or proxy module to mirror the (img directory) structure on each clone to that of the central. With such a rule in place you could use relative img urls instead & internally rewrite all requests to these images over to the central server, silently
e.g.:
https://cloneA/banner.jpg -> http://central/static/banner.jpg
https://cloneB/topic7/img/header.jpg -> http://central/static/topic7/header.jpg
I'd go with B.
Sadly, I think you'll find this is a sad fact of life in SSL. Even if you were to put a cert on the other server, I think it may still get confused because of different sites [can't confirm nor deny though], and regardless, you don't want to waste the time of your media server by encrypting images.
I figured out a completely different way to import the images late last night after asking this question. In IIS, at least, you can set up "Virtual Directories" that can point essentially anywhere (I'm now evaluating whether to use a dedicated directory on each web server or a URL). If I use a dedicated directory on each server I will have three directories to keep up to date, but at least I don't have 70+.
Since each site will pull the images using resource locations found on the local site, then I don't have to worry about changing the SSL status of any page.