Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gail, not Gmail

gail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#111

Post by Exuma »

laumars wrote: post #62
Exuma wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but at some point logic and reason take over. No one's mentioning money grubbing capitalism here at the expense of someone else... What we have here is literally a blank page, that offers no value to the reader. Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile I could understand. Yet, It's only a pat-myself-on-the-back message how they defend their name. So they USE the name to talk about how they're protecting the…

> What we have here is literally a blank page, that offers no value to the reader. Perhaps if they showed something worthwhile I could understand. Domain names aren't just there to resolve IPs for the web. You can have any online service resolve to it. More specifically people often buy domain names just for personalised email. It's also worth noting that your point is directly refuted by the very first QA on her FAQ…

Yes agreed, I didn't think about email aspect

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#112

Post by jordigh »

ankimal wrote: post #105

Why not show ads and give the money to a charity or any other foundation of your choice?

It appears that they object to ads in principle ("if you feel like you need more ads in your life..."), which is something I respect immensely. I wish more people made a stand against advertising. It is psychological manipulation that we are guilted into accepting for the good of capitalism.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#113

Post by mynameisvlad »

burntsushi wrote: post #41

The FAQ links to an account of an attempted takeover of the domain that I found fascinating to read: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006... Some interesting excerpts: > vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the com…

> I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the complaint.

The best part is that the first result for "GAIL" isn't even this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIL

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#115

Post by mynameisvlad »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #76
blauditore wrote: post #21

I think you couldn't make much money out of this anyway. 5k daily visitors sounds decent, but they are of low "quality": They quickly leave and would generate bad click-through rates. It would probably yield less than $100 a month.

The entire page is 2501 bytes consisting of 246 words. How do you figure that slow readers are higher quality visitors than the others?

That's not what the parent comment said at all. They're lower quality visitors because they don't have a genuine interest in "gail.com", they most likely wanted to go to "gmail.com" and mistyped (hence the name of the post). Once they see it's not actually Gmail, most will bounce pretty quickly.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#116

Post by sbarre »

skaber wrote: post #55

So there's really no way for a company to take over a domain if they have a legitimate reason? My company's dot com shows what looks to be a low value video. I've reached out to the guy a few years ago and he simply replied that there were some things that money couldn't buy... Petal.com if you're interested. I'd love to have that domain, and yeah it's affecting our brand.

There is a process you can go through with ICANN and WIPO if you feel that you both (a) have a legitimate claim to the domain name and (b) the current owner does not have a legitimate claim. If the panel sides with you, then the domain will be transferred to you.

Note that (b) is - intentionally - quite difficult to prove, and is designed to prevent overtly bad-faith cyber-squatting without allowing "he who came late to the game but has more money wins" type of reverse-hijacking.

Since "petal" is a common word that you chose to use, but did not invent or have worldwide common recognition with, you very likely won't have much of a chance of using the dispute resolution process to obtain petal.com.

Interesting article about the early days of domain ownership disputes here:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/communications_lawye...

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#117

Post by GrumpyNl »

dvirsky wrote: post #39

I once worked with a guy who had a domain that is the name of a major bank in my country (i.e. he owned {bank_name}.xyz and the bank's domain is {bank_name}-bank.xyz). Somehow he managed to hold on to it over the years. Anyway, he had a catch-all email account for the domain, an sometimes interesting stuff would arrive. One day he showed me an email he had just received from a major investment firm that read more or…

Did he check if it was from Nigeria?

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#118

Post by vlucas »

erdemozg wrote: post #9

I would be tempted to implement a custom SMTP server that accepts every email as if that target mailbox exists and collect them on a nosql db (just for curiosity and technical challenge) though I have no idea if I'd face any legal issues.

I made a service that does this ( https://disposeamail.com/ ), and I am constantly asking myself if it's worth it. The PostgreSQL database takes up over half the disk space on the VPS I run it on, and that's only after a few months. And of course it's almost all ultra low quality spam.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#119

Post by mrstone »

tyingq wrote: post #70

Also interesting in this space.... Microsoft vs a High School Kid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft Google fails to win dispute for oogle.com: http://blog.dnattorney.com/2012/07/google-loses-ooglecom-dom... Julia Roberts gets control of her namesake domain, but Bruce Springsteen does not: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bruce.html

Uhh... so don't even try going to oogle.com

It just takes over your browser and makes it impossible to close without killing the PID.

Re: Gail, not Gmail

#120

Post by peeters »

nrki wrote: post #110

If Google was worried about mail being siphoned off (via typos), they'd just have to setup a periodic automatic check. gail.com don't currently accept email for @gmail.com: $ host -t mx gail.com gail.com mail is handled by 10 mail.protonmail.ch. $ nc -w1 mail.protonmail.ch 25 220 mail1i.protonmail.ch ESMTP Postfix HELO test.com 250 mail1i.protonmail.ch mail from: 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt to: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied…

I'm lost, probably because I know nothing about SMTP and mail routing. If you were worried about typos where they accidentally use @gail.com instead of @gmail.com, why would it not accepting @gmail.com be relevant?

Or are you talking about a typo in the routing config itself?

Post reply on HN