Sorry if this is off-topic, didn't know where else to ask.

But I have seen/ been referred to a www2.domain.com instead of
www.domainname.com. Whats the difference?

Does it use different message routing or something?

TIA

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:50:58 -0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , "Jack"
<not@home.com> wrote:

Nothing at all.

The website's human-readable name is only there for our convenience.
It maps onto an IP address. Its this address which is important. You
can call your website anything you like, the www is totally optional,
though conventionally used to distinguish webservers from mailservers
and other servers.

Mark McIntyre
--

"Jack" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:89KdnShId9nYuonZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net:

Nothing, its just a different hostname. You could easily have something
like shop.domain.com.

Chances are it probably means that your being sent to a different server.
www.domain.com will point to one server and www2.domain.com will be a
different server for handling that bit. It'll all begin with http:// which
is what tells you the protocol being used.

--
Colin
*Drop DEAD from the email address to reply*

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

Just to clarify, lest anyone gets the impression that they're
interchangeable . . .

DNS servers still need to know what symbolic address you've *actually*
chosen - otherwise they won't be able to resolve it into an IP address. For
example, if I have a site at www.joe_bloggs.com but put www2.joe_bloggs.com
into my browser's address field, it won't find my site.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Please reply to newsgroup.
Reply address IS valid, but is disposable in the event of excessive
spam.

In message <Xns978499DE8BEC3cwfidei@84.92.1.12>, cw
<usenet@fidei.DEADco.uk> wrote
Example

<http://rswww.com>

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

"Jack" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:89KdnShId9nYuonZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
It's a way of diguising scam sites eg: www2.paypal.com, www2.ebay.com

The true address is an IP number which is sometimes visible in your browser
and sometimes not.

If an address is anything different from what you think it should be, don't
click on the link.

(kim)

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:19:16 UTC, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:

No, it's not. Your so-called 'scam' examples would still be resolved by
the DNS servers for paypal.com and ebay.com. Ergo, they can't be used
for a scam.

The correct answer has already been given.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Roger Mills (aka Tiscali Tim)" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com>
wrote in message news:47itbiFft3b3U1@individual.net
Nor is it guaranteed to find it if you just enter joe.bloggs.com - some
sites need the www and some don't. My own site won't work without the www
but others will.

Ivor

On 12 Mar 2006 15:53, Alan <junk_reply@amac.f2s.com> wrote:

Yes, I wish the banks would make better use of sub-domains like that to
have few opportunities for customer confusion - could easily have things
like loans.bank.com and savings.bank.com, etc, without needing to use the
extra domains (like halifax-online.co.uk) which allow domain squatting,
and for attempts to get customer data by setting up *similar* names.

Getting common for some to drop the "www" prefix (bbcnews.com, bbc.co.uk/...
and cnn.com because it takes time to say/read, perhaps!)

Usual for example.com and www.example.com to end up on same server, but
neither is guaranteed. www.nominet.org.uk works but nominet.org.uk won't
work. http://linux.vfm-domains.com/ works, but won't work as just that
domain name, or with the www. prefix means that spammers don't visit a
website, and junk mail to vfm-domains.com is just rejected, yet email
to something@linux.vfm-domains.com will work... I used 'linux' as a
word other than 'www' 'web' 'support' but (almost) anything will do
in place, if one wants to set things up that way.


Not exactly useful... I suspect RS decided to go for that because there
are restrictions on 2-letter .uk domain names, and rs.com was registered
back in 1991, presumably by some US firm (Rocket Software uses it now).

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Bob Eager <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote:


The first resolves to an IP address (even though the ping itself times out)
but the second doesn't.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Please reply to newsgroup.
Reply address IS valid, but is disposable in the event of excessive
spam.

On 12 Mar 2006 19:02, "Roger Mills" wrote:

What bit of Bob's comment that the lookup will be carried out on servers
used by PayPal.com is incorrect ? It's better (IMO) to use multiple sub-
domains than multiple domain names, and whether something responds to your
ping depends on lots of things, but is unrelated to how it gets looked up.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:02:13 UTC, "Roger Mills \(aka Tiscali Tim\)"
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:

That doesn't disprove my point. It just means that Paypal don't have
www2.paypal.com in their DNS. My point is that it's impossible for
anyone else to have it, because all requests to resolve any name ending
in .paypal.com will be delegated to the PayPal DNS - and nowhere else.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Bob Eager" <rde42@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-vgD2JEKdFr3r@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
I've received scam posts which included www2.paypal.com and www2.ebay.com in
their reply address. Running my cursor over the link displayed a yellow box
with a completely different address in it. Some posts managed to conceal the
true address completely while others were unbelievably obvious. Hence my
warning. If it looks a bit like a genuine address but not exactly the same
it is probably a scam.

(kim)

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:37:02 UTC, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:

I'm sure you have. But the use of 'www2' has no relation to the mismatch
between the text and the link.

Of course, there are many such cases. But you are missing the point
here. If the TRUE address ends in the correct domain name, then it will
go to the true holder of that domain name. If it has something else at
the END, it won't. So, for example:

www2.ebay.com, dodgyname.paypal.com

are both safe, but

www.ebay.com.nu

is not. Note the lack of correlation between the 'www2' or 'www' part,
and the validity of the address.

Many perfectly respectable sites use 'www2' addresses including (on
occasion) eBay and PayPal themselves. Which is why they're used in scams
- as are 'www' addresses!

There is NO link between use of 'www2' (for example) and scams. If you
want to warn about such a link, you should also warn people about 'www',
as it is used equally often.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Do you know what are you talking about?
If you've got mydomain.com you can do
this.is.also.an.address.in.mydomain.com.
You just have to set it up on the domain's nameserver(s).

m.

On 15 Mar 2006 11:21, "Martin Lukasik" wrote:

He does, as did the earlier posters, basically on similar lines to
what you posted...

eg example.com www.example.com xyzabc.example.com

could all be valid, but only work if they are defined to give an IP and
won't work if they aren't defined... So why are you questioning whether
he knows what he's on about ? It suggests you think otherwise. Peter M.


--
USENET news service ? <http://tinyurl.com/3rjw4> (plans from < US $5 )