New concept for webmasters to view

Whether they're pointing to real sites or not, Google won't see URLs with @ in them.

http://www.somebody@someplace.com

Google is going to strip out the username and simply send people to http://someplace.com.

Even if http://www.somebody@someplace.com forwards to a real address, Google won't see it.

I agree google will not accept Fin@nce.biz as a genuine adress -because it s a fake. But the web browser accepts the fake - which is great if you are using it in adverts - instead of MiltonKeynesFinance.co.uk

If you wanted to post something on the google search engine you would have to use the real address not the fake one.

I agree this is a limitation - but one door closes - another opens.

These fake addresses are very easy to remember because they are either identical to your e-mail address or visually simple.

I agree google will not accept Fin@nce.biz as a genuine adress -because it s a fake. But the web browser accepts the fake - which is great for vanity sites which do not want to be on google.

If you wanted to post something on the google search engine you would have to use the real address not the fake one.

I agree this is a limitation - but one door closes - another opens.

The answer id to build a few packages and try them out in the market place. I have a server and anyone is welcome to use our software!

i like the idea you could make something like msn but each persion gets ther own webpage i like it.

please help!

I am a useless artist with no webmaster skills.

My partner is an excellant webmaster and has built http://www.A-tails.com, I think the time has now come for a few others to add their invention and ideas to what we have started.

I really feel this is a door slightly ajar - help us push it open!

An old thread, but I thought I'd just post this bit of info that was announced yesterday...

http://enterprisesecurity.symantec.com/ ... cleID=3296

So, it looks like even if you can get these scripts working and sold, Micro$oft may make this idea impossible.

But it does work with or without microsofts co-operation.

the only thing is that it is not shown in the browser box correctly - ie netscapes shows W@ltDisney.com and microsoft shows tlDisney.com


I am optimistic that it will be adopted in time - the internet is very young and undercrowded compared to what it will be like in ten years time. Addresses will be needed, this is one option.

Yes, but how many people don't use Internet Explorer? Throughout all my sites, totalling over 50,000 page views per day, 97-98% of them are using Internet Explorer.

Whether it will be adopted or not isn't the issue, it's whether it'll WORK or not. It works RIGHT NOW with IE, but that announcement was just made yesterday. SOON, it may not be as easily done because Micr$oft is changing Internet Explorer to specifically target this aspect of the browser.

Thank you John

I understand what you are saying. That is bad news for my fantasies!

Julian

By "trickery"? Hmm, you know I wasn't even going to comment...but rewrite rules and/or proxypass rules are hardly "trickery"; they have been in around since circa 1996.

Placing the 'www' prior to the 'pseudo-domain' is hardly necessary either -- after all it's merely a throwback and a default hostname. (Hostname.domain.TLD) What make something web traffic is entirely the requestor's protocol choice. Even in your example, you made it a web transaction by declaring the A HREF, vs. the MAILTO. You invoke protocol; it has nothing to do with adding a www -- technically speaking. If you add it to clarify the use of web protocols, then as a social mechanism it may have worth.

So what we end up having is either a system that makes use of the '@' symbol -- either as an access control mechanism that doe snot use a password but instead checks for either valid users OR admit all, or in a proxypass/rewrite condition; most likely both. I would not exactly classify it as ground-breaking, especially considering anyone on this forum could, without a doubt obtain a domain, host the domain, get a book on Apache and Sendmail/qmail/postfix, and set it up themselves for as little as 2.99 a month -- hosting fees. Anything less, and I fail to see any fiduciary gain.

But hey, stranger things have happened. Much luck to ya.

Cheers.