[sf-lug] renewed: Re: sf-lug.com - renew in 2018? (or not?)
Michael Paoli
Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
Fri May 4 08:41:49 PDT 2018
I don't think we're about to hop registrars.
Jim prefers joker.com and also has other domain(s) with joker.com,
and sf-lug.org is with joker.com. And cheaper registrar isn't
necessarily better (and no shortage of reasons to avoid
godaddy).
Changing registrars generally also involves some cost
(e.g. typically something around $10.00 USD per domain) to transfer
domain.
Also, I believe joker.com allows anyone to pay to renew any non-expired
domain (or at least .com domains). That's not necessarily the case with
other registrars (though many(/most?) allow that ... and
networksolutions.com/web.com highly sucks at that ... allows it, but
renew once with a credit (or debit) card not belonging to a registrant
contact, don't pick/set/request auto-renew, they'll keep charging the same
card for renewals, without cardholder's permission and without giving
cardholder any way to stop it ... most registrars don't suck as much as
networksolutions.com/web.com).
There's also more overhead if multiple registrars need to be dealt with
for SF-LUG's domains (and/or other domains).
sf-lug.org renewal was $17.40 USD (€ 14.08), I'd think sf-lug.com
would be relatively similar.
Want to keep sf-lug.com? Doesn't matter to me much either way - I
consider sf-lug.com non-canonical and (highly) optional.
If renewed, continues pretty much per usual (notably, things sf-lug.com
HTTP 301 "permanent" redirect to sf-lug.org). If not renewed, I drop the
sf-lug.com infrastructure bits (notably configuration, etc.) from the
BALUG Virtual Machine (VM) that's also hosting sf-lug.org and sf-lug.com,
and the sf-lug.org stuff continues without change.
Hmmm, ... how much traffic does sf-lug.com get ... "vs." sf-lug.org?
# (cd /var/log/apache2 && { zcat *access.log*.gz; cat $(ls -d
*access.log* | grep -v '\.gz$'); } | sed -e
's/:.*$//;y/ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ/abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz/;/sf-lug/!d;s/\.$//;s/^.*\.\(sf-lug\.org\)$/\1/;s/^.*\.\(sf-lug\.com\)$/\1/' | egrep '^sf-lug\.(org|com)$') | sort | uniq -c | sort
-bnr
1123073 sf-lug.org
108531 sf-lug.com
# echo 'scale=2;100*108531/(108531+1123073)' | bc -l
8.81
#
So ... sf-lug.com domain gets (somewhat surprisingly) about 8.81% of the
traffic ... though that's really all just redirects ... and at quick
glance may mostly just be some relatively dumb 'bots. Let's see ...
# (cd /var/log/apache2 && { zcat *access.log*.gz; cat $(ls -d
*access.log* | grep -v '\.gz$'); } | sed -ne 's/^[^
]*[sS][fF]-[lL][uU][gG]\.[cC][oO][mM]\.\{0,1\}:[^ ]* [^ ]* [^ ]* [^ ]*
\[[^]]*\] "[^"]*" \([^ ]*\) [^ ]* "[^"]*" "\([^"]*\)".*$/\1 \2/p') |
sort | uniq -c | sort -bnr | head -n 13
33371 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MJ12bot/v1.4.8; http://mj12bot.com/)
21745 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MJ12bot/v1.4.7; http://mj12bot.com/)
4931 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; AhrefsBot/5.2; +http://ahrefs.com/robot/)
3216 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Baiduspider/2.0;
+http://www.baidu.com/search/spider.html)
3166 301 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:40.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/40.1
1638 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0;
+http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)
934 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; SemrushBot/1.2~bl;
+http://www.semrush.com/bot.html)
843 301 -
830 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; YandexBot/3.0; +http://yandex.com/bots)
440 301 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0)
like Gecko
413 301 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1;
+http://www.google.com/bot.html)
404 301 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64)
AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/40.0.2214.85 Safari/537.36
401 301 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
#
And ... I suspect that:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:40.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/40.1
is some bot ... and a quick web search would seem to confirm that it
(at least generally) is a bot.
So, would appear to be that at least the top 11 are bots (or provide
no or empty User-Agent string). And that data presently goes back to ...
# (cd /var/log/apache2 && ls -ltr *access.log*) | head
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 336 Feb 6 2010 other_vhosts_access.log.2.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 19754 Oct 30 2015 other_vhosts_access.log.1
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 0 Oct 30 2015 other_vhosts_access.log
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 512637 Mar 19 2017 ssl_access.log.60.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 510143 Mar 19 2017 access.log.60.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 527312 Mar 27 2017 ssl_access.log.59.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 624812 Mar 27 2017 access.log.59.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 534876 Apr 2 2017 access.log.58.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 528704 Apr 2 2017 ssl_access.log.58.gz
-rw-r----- 1 root adm 835225 Apr 10 2017 access.log.57.gz
#
... well, I probably should've filtered out the other_vhosts ...
in any case, goes back to about 2017-03 - so moderate bit over a year's
worth of data.
In any case, someone graciously went ahead and renewed sf-lug.com,
so that's now covered, and we can take up the question again in 2019:
$ whois -H sf-lug.com 2>&1 | fgrep -i expir | grep '201[89]-'
Registry Expiry Date: 2019-07-02T21:17:46Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-07-02T21:17:46Z
$
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] sf-lug.com - renew in 2018? (or not?)
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:04:33 -0700
> If you want to keep it, I'll pay for it. It's pretty easy to
> transfer it to godaddy.
> I don't love godaddy, but they seem to be cheapest, and their system works.
>
> On 5/3/2018 23:24, Michael Paoli wrote:
>> So, ... I've renewed sf-lug.org.
>>
>> What of sf-lug.com.? Don't really have to have it.
>> sf-lug.org. has been the canonical domain for quite a while.
>>
>> Anyone want to pay to renew sf-lug.com, or should we let that one go?
>> I think joker.com, like many registrars, may allow anyone to renew a
>> non-expired domain.
>>
>>> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
>>> To: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
>>> Subject: sf-lug.com - renew in 2018? (or not?)
>>> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2017 08:46:15 -0700
>>
>>> Plan ahead :-) ...
>>>
>>> So, well noted on my calendar:
>>> 2018-05-02 sf-lug.com - will we renew? - domain expires
>>> 2018-07-02T21:17:46Z
>>> Don't need to decide now or particularly soon, but ... thinking/planning
>>> ahead and such ...
>>> I notice that (at least at present time) it appears Joker.com
>>> allows non-registrants to pay renewals on non-expired .com
>>> domains. So ... I'll be sure to cover sf-lug.org (at least if
>>> nobody else does so). For sf-lug.com ... I needn't be
>>> particularly concerned in the decision ;-) ... as
>>> anyone can check if it's been renewed or not (whois, etc.), and
>>> (essentially) anyone can pay to have it renewed.
>>> I'll figure if y'all want sf-lug.com renewed, someone will
>>> renew it - and before it expires, and if not,
>>> well, I'll presume no one is really that interested in
>>> sf-lug.com and we can do without. ;-)
>>> What's it cost to renew a non-expired .com on
>>> https://joker.com/ ? - at present it looks like $13.50 USD.
>>>
>>> So ... shall be decided in 2018. :-)
>>>
>>> Also, the incremental work to also maintain sf-lug.com "atop"
>>> sf-lug.org is pretty minimal (using same hosting, etc.).
>>> It's mostly just (free) TLS(/"SSL") cert(s), relatively tiny bit of
>>> additional web stuff (notably redirects and cert(s)).
>>> Only other bit really is maintain the registrant data (quite
>>> easy) ... and there is of course the
>>> domain registration renewal costs ... at least for someone. ;-)
>>>
>>>> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
>>>> Subject: sf-lug.org remains canonical, thinning of non-canonical
>>>> sf-lug.com (to [www.]sf-lug.com)
>>>> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:58:15 -0700
>>>
>>>> So ... I'm going to be doing a bit of thinning (for simplification,
>>>> etc.) of [www.]sf-lug.com - which redirects to the canonical
>>>> www.sf-lug.org anyway,
>>>> notably dropping DNS (and related dependencies thereupon)
>>>> for all sf-lug.com except for [www.]sf-lug.com. (and excepting
>>>> anything that is needed specifically to support those).
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not we wish to keep the sf-lug.com. domain is a question we
>>>> can revisit each time renewal for sf-lug.com starts to approach ...
>>>> no rush at present, since currently that doesn't expire until:
>>>> 2018-07-02T21:17:46Z
>>>> So ... can probably revisit that question around 2018-05--2018-06.
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
>>>>> To: "Jim Stockford" <jim at well.com>
>>>>> Cc: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>, "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: sf-lug.{com,info} --> www.sf-lug.org (canonical)
>>>>> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:09:19 -0800
>>>>
>>>>> I've also similarly set up
>>>>> [www.][ipv6.]sf-lug.com --> www.[ipv6.]sf-lug.org
>>>>>
>>>>> So canonical domain is sf-lug.org, with www.[ipv6.]sf-lug.org
>>>>> for web site.
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: jim <jim at well.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: sf-lug.info
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:24:55 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I don't recall creating sf-lug.info, but
>>>>>> a lot has happened, and I've shared the work with
>>>>>> anyone who wanted to chip in and learn or teach.
>>>>>> I agree that sf-lug.org should be the cannonical
>>>>
>>>> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2016q1/011587.html
More information about the sf-lug
mailing list