Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged]
soheil 34 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite



I guess they dont know about the `Location` header?

    ↪ curl --verbose http://thefailingnytimes.com/
    *   Trying 54.231.83.9...
    * Connected to thefailingnytimes.com (54.231.83.9) port 80 (#0)
    > GET / HTTP/1.1
    > Host: thefailingnytimes.com
    > User-Agent: curl/7.50.1
    > Accept: */*
    > 
    < HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    < x-amz-id-2: 3/A2c4uv6C9ElXBmvw5hzPDNSG0fYwiDfyeHxobE8eqiwy7p+lFdQwFGx92B7Yg+EJtfOr+c1yI=
    < x-amz-request-id: B58F8E66505B6259
    < Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 06:03:57 GMT
    < Last-Modified: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 05:39:59 GMT
    < ETag: "58ca9e6b05c3b8f082825624638ecc61"
    < Content-Type: text/html
    < Content-Length: 111
    < Server: AmazonS3
    < 

    <script>
    document.location.href='https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html';
    </script>

    * Connection #0 to host thefailingnytimes.com left intact


Looks like they're hosting it on S3, I think there is a way to host static content like this on S3 with almost 0 cost. Not sure if it's possible to do a 301 redirect using the same serverless method.


Can you elaborate for someone still learning? Can't you usually set up DNS records to redirect a domain name to a domain you don't own?


I suppose they wanted to change the destination URL more easily (quick upload to S3 bucket) and not have it be cached at the DNS level (even though you could set it to 1min ttl), etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: