| 2:03 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
to examplify what you've put
this would be a technically correct sub sub domain if you like.
however normally you would want a sub domain to resolve to
but they've added an extra depth eg
i'd suggest this is not what they want
| 3:06 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|i'd suggest this is not what they want |
Now I'm trying to second-guess what's gone on - whether that is the actual address set up, or whether it's just been communicated badly.
| 3:16 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
maybe a silly question ... but maybe as you said they have just miscommunicated to you ...
does something.example.co.uk resolve?
| 3:53 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Not a silly question - but I did try that as well. The same problem. What's odd is that it's not a 'server not found' error (or in fact a redirect to their main site, as they have with sub-domains that definitely do not exist), but rather a 500 Internal Error on their host.
| 9:13 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Good. Then the problem is between them and their host. Unless you've got formal authorization to act on their behalf, you couldn't do anything if you wanted to* ;) If it were a DNS issue you'd never even get that far.
But you need to look at the error logs for more information. Even at the generic shared-hosting level, error logs will generally tell you enough to diagnose the problem.
* Assuming for the sake of discussion it isn't one of those "What's a browser?" clients. If so, it will be faster to get authorization and do it yourself than to explain what to do.
| 8:40 am on Sep 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Well, mystery over. The address without www. at the start is now resolving to our servers.
I doubt I'll find out what changed, but everyone's happy campers now, so I'll just leave it be.
Glad I didn't have to get involved with their host - that always seems to drain hours and hours away.
| 5:10 pm on Sep 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
subs are never set up www they are subs not the root domain.