Sigh, I'm not a fan of domains becoming the new kind of real estate.
Wonder how hard will it be in 20 years to get a good, unused name in a reasonable price.
A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
41–50 of 134 posts
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#42Something I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration? Around 1998 I registered a domain. Sony registered a trademark with the same name a few years after that. Someone on a Gmail account asked if he could buy it - I later found out he worked for Sony. I told him no - it's for a game I've been working on. I went on a vac…
A reply said this, but it's dead: >If you're offering it for sale, you're clearly not using it for commerce. [...] >if you're selling a domain and someone has a trademark for it, you should have to hand it over. Hell, I'd argue that should apply even without a trademark [...] I disagree, but they made a point and did so clearly. Why that person felt someone else's chosen commercial use of a domain should trump anyone…
I agree with you about assets being for sale (if someone wrote a big enough check I'd sell my house right now) and commercial not trumping non commercial, but there was, at least for a while, a reasonable argument for opposing "domain squatting" under the theory that domain names were a limited resource and society as a whole benefits from those resources being used more optimally.
It's like concert tickets or any other limited resource that is transferable, "society" generally wants most people to have access to them but if they're too cheap then it's easy for one rich person to just buy them all.
Anyways, domain names are perhaps less limited these days (and google/claude kind of remove user's direct interaction anyways) if the usage of non-dotcoms are anything to go by. Also it's super hard to distinguish personal private use vs squatting.
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#43From the RFC The "_for-sale" leaf node name can be placed at any level of the DNS, except in the .arpa infrastructure TLD. There used to be a number of sites that would let users create {username}.some.subdomain.apex.tld. Perhaps this is not a thing any more I honestly don't know . If it is still a thing and someone registers the username "_for-sale" they could cause some confusion. Why allow any level of DNS? If you…
Country code TLDs would be one reason. Many countries reserve top-level domains names and only sell second-level domains (e.g. example.co.uk)
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#44Yeah cause we really had to improve domain squatters lives. In my opinion domain squatting should be banned instead.
Like a lot of things, society would probably benefit if we had caps on how much a single entity could own.
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#45> Remove it when the domain is no longer for sale. The convention has no “not for sale” value; absence is the only way to say no.
Since most domains that are for sale don't currently have such a record, it would be wrong to assume they are not for sale. Therefore, absence of such a record does not explicitly mean "not for sale." It's no different from a house: a "for sale" sign in the front yard means it's for sale, but lack of a sign doesn't mean it's not for sale; it could mean the owner doesn't wish to advertise that way, or at all.
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#46RFC: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10023.html
Thank you, for a moment I wondered why a specification was being written by AI.
This website has been trying to gain a veneer of legitimacy for months now. Half of its contents aren't even published by any real standards body, it's just AI-centric "best practices" for the current generation of hyperscaler models.
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#47It’s interesting that domains apparently are still such a big business, despite how browsers have been deemphasizing URLs and domain names, and given the prevalence of apps.
Domain names are a mess in my opinion. Even though we have over a thousand TLDs only a very small handful are considered for commerce or even thought to be valid. I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com. It's not just the common person's fault but also software engineers / product managers who still have a very restrictive view of what a TLD is (under 3 t…
Habituation is difficult to overcome. If domain names had been freeform from the start, we wouldn’t have this particular issue.
Domain names are still a finite space, given that a full domain name can be at most 253 characters, and each domain label at most 63 characters. “Requiring” a .com/.org/.net/.CC at the end isn’t really that much of a restriction.
By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available.
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#48[flagged]
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#49From the RFC The "_for-sale" leaf node name can be placed at any level of the DNS, except in the .arpa infrastructure TLD. There used to be a number of sites that would let users create {username}.some.subdomain.apex.tld. Perhaps this is not a thing any more I honestly don't know . If it is still a thing and someone registers the username "_for-sale" they could cause some confusion. Why allow any level of DNS? If you…
Initial underscore is a reserved namespace for this reason.
Is that universally true on all sites that allow a user to create a sub-domain?
Re: A domain can now say it is for sale, in DNS
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Domain names are a mess in my opinion. Even though we have over a thousand TLDs only a very small handful are considered for commerce or even thought to be valid. I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com. It's not just the common person's fault but also software engineers / product managers who still have a very restrictive view of what a TLD is (under 3 t…
Habituation is difficult to overcome. If domain names had been freeform from the start, we wouldn’t have this particular issue. Domain names are still a finite space, given that a full domain name can be at most 253 characters, and each domain label at most 63 characters. “Requiring” a .com/.org/.net/.CC at the end isn’t really that much of a restriction. By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available.
That's a fair point. I knew I was going to popped for the comment about it being an infinite space, haha, because it definitely isn't but domain names don't necessarily have the physical constraints land does. There's no such thing, necessarily, as a domain name that is "in the boonies" or no way to create more domain space.
> By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available.
Hmmm! I may have to grab this one. The one I really want is madeline.com (it's owned by the family who made Madeline the book) but I am doubtful I will ever get that one without loads of money or ever, hah.
I am hesitant to say the domain because of spammers but it is the [shortened version of that name].today.