With the Google penalties that are incurred for duplicate content, only the "official" web-site location should be available via an A record in DNS. Assuming the "official" web-site will become junit-pioneer.org, the following host names should be changed to CNAME records that point to the "official" web-site.
As an aside, these existing records have a slight error as the www.junit-pioneer.org host name is using an A record in DNS and it points to a different IP address than junit-pioneer.org does.
Oops, fixed. Now both junit-pioneer.org as well as *.junit-pioneer.org point to 185.199.108.153.
@smoyer64 wrote:
and .junit-pioneer.org is a CNAME? (I just wildcarded .junitpioneer.org too ... when the changes propagate even guacamole.junitpioneer.org will be valid!). I'm still wondering what to do with the MX record.
@nicolaiparlog wrote:
No, * is not a CNAME, it's A. Is that correct? (Did I mention, I don't know anything DNS? 😉)
I expected guacamole.junit-pioneer.org to work, but it doesn't.
I have not added an MX entry - I wouldn't know where to. Let's just hope, nobody send us mail. 😉
@smoyer64 wrote:
It turns out that wildcarding CNAMES doesn't include the base domain and my DNS host (Linode) doesn't allow a CNAME for the primary domain ... I've replace it with an A record.
I think your wildcard should be a CNAME (alias) so that Google doesn't apply the duplicate content penalty. I would hope that (eventually) we'd show up on the first page when someone searches for JUnit 5. And I think the fact that guacamole.junit-pioneer.org doesn't work is related to how GitHub.io does their virtual hosting.
I'll have to research the MX record a bit ... this would all be much easier under the umbrella of an OSS organization.
@nicolaiparlog wrote:
@smoyer64 At the moment, all *.junitpioneer.org and .junitpioneer.org lead to "404 - There isn't a GitHub Pages site here." Can you have a look at that?
Moved from junit-pioneer repo #108 as it belongs to the website.
@smoyer64 wrote:
@nicolaiparlog wrote:
@smoyer64 wrote:
@nicolaiparlog wrote:
@smoyer64 wrote:
@nicolaiparlog wrote: