RE: PRO/CONS OF VIRTUAL HOSTING SERVICES

• To:
• From:
• Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 04:01:20 EST
• Cc:

  
  
  
  
Daniel writes:
  
>http://company.com/ generally is generally no more intuitive than
>http://company.com/company/.  This is a rehash of the "predictable
>domain name" and "predictable mailbox name" discussion.  It only makes a
>difference for very well known company names.  Promoting this practise
>will give a wrong image of prestige to a "short URL".
  
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this. For those companies who are using
or wish to use the WWW for marketing purposes, it is a question of following
what is *already* established practice and being on an equal footing with
other companies.
  
(I'm not pleading special interest - We are in the process of moving from a
virtual host on an "WWW Hotel" to a new dedicated server of our own - no
address space is thus freed up.)
  
Andrew J Cowie
Royal Insurance plc
(http://www.royal-group.com/)
  
 Extra X400 information begins:
             Originator
                     Name: COWIEA
                Org Units: LIVERPOOL
             Organisation: NHP
                   Domain: GB/IBMX400/ROYINT
              Node.Userid: IBMX400.116780
  
           Message Id: 0002C9A6.MAI
              Sent by
                   Name: COWIEA
              Org Units: LIVERPOOL
           Organisation: NHP
                 Domain: GB/IBMX400/ROYINT
            Node.Userid: IBMX400.116780
          Free Fmt Name: COWIE, Andrew / NHP
              Subject: RE: PRO/CONS OF VIRTUAL HOSTING SERVICES
           Recipients
                   Name: INET INET
                 Domain: GB/IBMX400/IBMMAIL
            Node.Userid: IBMMAIL.INET
          Free Fmt Name: INET, INET
          Reply request: No

• Post To The List: