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

foo@bar.com

bar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 301 posts

Re: foo@bar.com

#221

Post by endgame »

captn3m0 wrote: post #128
CydeWeys wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.app, .dev, .prod, and .zip all had substantial volume of problematic traffic that was discovered during the Controlled Interruption period (which occurs prior to launch and consists of a wildcard DNS entry placed on the entire TLD). You would not believe some of the brokenness that was happening there. .zip may need some explanation -- apparently there are lots of library API calls out there that take a path string…

ICANN should never have assigned .zip, there's just too much potential for abuse, confusion giving away a common extension as a TLD.

ICANN should never have done gTLDs at all.

Re: foo@bar.com

#222

Post by 867-5309 »

I just use no@thank.you for these silly sites which try to force sign-up, or variations therein, e.g. no.th@n.ks

length of access using this method varies but it's usually enough time to cache and consume their precious content

it's impossible to verify a valid email address without sending a verification link. one half measure is to ping for an MX entry on the user-provided domain, but even that isn't bulletproof

if they go to such unnecessary lengths to hide their content then it simply isn't worth viewing. scoff, close tab, forget

Re: foo@bar.com

#223

Post by drexlspivey »

867-5309 wrote: post #222

I just use no@thank.you for these silly sites which try to force sign-up, or variations therein, e.g. no.th@n.ks length of access using this method varies but it's usually enough time to cache and consume their precious content it's impossible to verify a valid email address without sending a verification link. one half measure is to ping for an MX entry on the user-provided domain, but even that isn't bulletproof if…

You should use https://10minutemail.com/ for those obnoxious sites

Re: foo@bar.com

#224

Post by jdxcode »

tsimionescu wrote: post #180
jdxcode wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we could go back I wonder if it would be better if we had required a leading dot in domain names ".google.com"

Or just required the use of the true FQDN - "google.com."

that's what I meant actually—I just forgot it was trailing

Re: foo@bar.com

#225

Post by Polylactic_acid »

CydeWeys wrote: post #75
robjan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The domain is for sale for the right price: https://www.haven2.com/index.php/domains Seems the asking price is at least 1m USD

Nice find. Guy has a serious portfolio of good .coms and knows what they're worth, and is holding out until he gets the right offer.

Does he ever get a good offer? It seems to be the case that all the biggest websites are not on "good names" but that they took meaningless words and make them good names.

Re: foo@bar.com

#226

Post by Polylactic_acid »

mattl wrote: post #206
kzrdude wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's counterintuitive, with the flora of TLDs

A lot of people assume .com for whatever reason

Every single tab I have open is on .com right now. Other tlds seem to only be used by blogs or small single page sites like .io games.

Re: foo@bar.com

#227

Post by Polylactic_acid »

erictd wrote: post #89

I used this as my email address just yesterday to avoid getting on yet another list. The shortest bar joke is missing here (or I missed it) - Man walks into a bar. ... Ouch!

This is also the email I signed up to reddit with since they started requiring emails.

Re: foo@bar.com

#228

Post by 867-5309 »

drexlspivey wrote: post #223
867-5309 wrote: post #222

I just use no@thank.you for these silly sites which try to force sign-up, or variations therein, e.g. no.th@n.ks length of access using this method varies but it's usually enough time to cache and consume their precious content it's impossible to verify a valid email address without sending a verification link. one half measure is to ping for an MX entry on the user-provided domain, but even that isn't bulletproof if…

You should use https://10minutemail.com/ for those obnoxious sites

would not load with tracker blocking enabled

Re: foo@bar.com

#229

Post by CydeWeys »

themacguffinman wrote: post #220
CydeWeys wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because of SSL, you really do need to own at least one real domain name that you use solely for testing. You can hang a bunch of subdomains off it and run separate applications on each one, but you are gonna want a real domain name. Fortunately domains are super cheap all things considered. A .dev domain (my preference, but admittedly I'm biased) is a buck a month. If you really want to penny-pinch there's much…

For me the cost isn't the main concern, it's the name collisions. I can easily obtain a short, memorable, and descriptive domain in a reserved TLD, but I probably have to find some obscure *.dev domain name because I'm competing with the entire world. Not the end of the world, I know, but I think it kind of defeats the purpose of reserved TLDs.

You'd be surprised how many short, memorable domains are still available on new gTLDs. E.g. there are several times more possible 4 letter strings than total .dev registrations that even exist. And if you're willing to use numbers this gets higher, let alone 5 characters or more.

Re: foo@bar.com

#230

Post by eli »

CydeWeys wrote: post #31
eli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anyone is paying millions of dollars for domains any more. Maybe low six figures.

Domain names are going for more money than ever before. The record for most expensive sale (publicly known anyway) was hit just last year. 30 million dollars for voice.com: https://domainnamewire.com/2019/06/20/yes-voice-com-is-the-m...

Only if you happen to have one someone really really wants. You can find 3 and 4 letter .coms publicly listed for six figures.
Post reply on HN