Live data from Hacker News

foo@bar.com

bar.com

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: foo@bar.com

#261

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…

I use nothanks@mailinator.com and email verification works for most part.

Re: foo@bar.com

#262
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading - long time ago - a story of a developer who used http://xxx as a placeholder for unknown domains, until at some point the browsers started resolved single-word links into www. .com... :-o

I was about 5 seconds away from clicking this link on my work laptop until I realized what it would redirect to. For others like me, it's very NSFW

It doesn't seem that the browsers still to the expansion things; I've tried it, and am just getting the "We’re having trouble finding that site." error message, or similar. But for some time that expansion was real.

Re: foo@bar.com

#264
post #131
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people who know and use the words foo and bar are almost exclusively developers, so they should know better eveb when typing a fake address to a random form. But it’s easy to type reflexively, without thinking, so I’m not surprised people do it.

The fact that it is a valid address is a feature , as some sites that demand email addresses (so they can spam you) verify the address for correctness. People are intentionally choosing an address that appears valid, because it is valid. So, sorry to the guy who bought bar.com, but that's what he signed up for.

Correctness and existence are two different things. I doubt many sites explicitly exclude @example.com or @*.test in their email validator.

Re: foo@bar.com

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the real answer here. It's widely believed that domains working the opposite way of filesystem hierarchies and even URL paths was a huge design mistake. Think of how many billions of dollars have been lost over the years from account compromises resulting from people not correctly distinguishing yourbank.com/account/foobar from yourbank.com-account.info/foobar.

1. The reason for the change is generally thought to be email: you read least specific to most specific from left to right, like non-American dates, e.g firstname.lastname@group.department.university.edu 2. also I think ! was used rather than . for some networks at some times. Certainly I’ve heard this anecdote from some early users of the internet (or maybe other computer networks) 3. Traditionally the dot is the ze…

> 3. Traditionally the dot is the zero-level or extra-top level domain, a bit like / for root in the Unix file system. Indeed if you use dig you may be familiar that it writes domains like “www.google.com.” My web browser only partly seems to accept this format.

The browser actually handles it just fine, but some webservers refuse to handle it, despite it being a spec. Most famously Traefik and Caddy as webservers refuse to support these, just because their devs don’t understand the spec and think they know better (what a surprise, both are written in go after all)

This actually causes quite a bit of trouble when you have internal systems resolving pretty much everything as local domain first, and some external webservers don’t support the spec. Most famously, caddyserver.com. itself is broken

Re: foo@bar.com

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The reason for the change is generally thought to be email: you read least specific to most specific from left to right, like non-American dates, e.g firstname.lastname@group.department.university.edu 2. also I think ! was used rather than . for some networks at some times. Certainly I’ve heard this anecdote from some early users of the internet (or maybe other computer networks) 3. Traditionally the dot is the ze…

> 2. also I think ! was used rather than . for some networks at some times. Certainly I’ve heard this anecdote from some early users of the internet (or maybe other computer networks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#Bang_path ! was used for manual routing from the source to the destination, when messages were copied from server to server via UUCP. People would write paths like ...!ucbvax!deptserver!myname , which…

And here's an example of an old business card using that format for an email address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP#/media/File:UUCP_Email_Ad...

Re: foo@bar.com

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The reason for the change is generally thought to be email: you read least specific to most specific from left to right, like non-American dates, e.g firstname.lastname@group.department.university.edu 2. also I think ! was used rather than . for some networks at some times. Certainly I’ve heard this anecdote from some early users of the internet (or maybe other computer networks) 3. Traditionally the dot is the ze…

Interesting, and makes sense, seeing as how the Web didn't yet exist when domain names were first invented, but email did. It does make sense that they were thus represented in a manner catering to that use case. In hindsight I guess we'd prefer if emails were backwards too, e.g. com.gmail@cydeweys

This is ironically what’s become popular for service-specific usernames (“on twitter @dan” and “on instagram @danny”). It’s arguably more useful than the email notation because prefixing with the @ is a clear sign that a username is coming next.

Re: foo@bar.com

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basecamp’s Pow project comes to mind. It enables zero config local development configuration, whereby at the time it would make your locally running dev server available on .dev So instead of having to spin up a local server and then visiting say 127.0.0.1:3000, I could instead just visit myappname.dev and it would show me what would previously show on localhost or it would spin up a server first for that app then sh…

I just got an “untrusted connection” warning visiting pow.cx

Oh woops just habit to set https now. Page is from an earlier time when we didn’t mind static sites not being https.

Visit http://pow.cx

Post reply on HN