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

281–290 of 301 posts

Re: foo@bar.com

#281

Post by cestith »

CydeWeys wrote: post #216
still_grokking wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only that the @ ("at") reads terribly than. So com.gmail/cydeweys maybe? Or it could be just an object in a global namespace (accesses through a protocol specific facade). So com.gmail.cydeweys

You could easily just use a different symbol, or pronounce it differently. We think it makes sense the way it is now, but that's only because we've all collectively gotten used to the meaning it has in email addresses. If it had had a different meaning all along then that would make sense to us. com.gmail.cydeweys doesn't really work because you need some way to distinguish that as an email address and not just a sub…

'@' was used to mean 'at' or 'each' for a long time before email addresses. Often in pricing. '12 @ $3' means twelve units priced at $3 each. It's referred to sometimes as 'commercial at', including its Unicode name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_sign

It was used as 'at' in computing in Algol 68 where it was a shorthand for a keyword 'at'. It has a different application as 'at' in Dyalog APL.

Re: foo@bar.com

#282

Post by bradstewart »

Hamuko wrote: post #106
jeroenhd wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only proper way to do internal DNS is to register a domain. Even a free one will do. The more people follow decent practices at home, the fewer businesses will accidentally break because on of the admins thought it'd be alright because it works for them at home. If you set your DNS domain correctly you can also save yourself some typing effort because DNS will automatically append the network name (so you can htt…

I do have a domain but I don't want to enter my private IP addresses on a public DNS. Hence I just have server.internal to point to the correct IP address on my local DNS server and have service1.server.com, service2.server.com, etc. all just CNAME to server.internal.

> don't want to enter my private IP addresses on a public DNS

Why not?

Re: foo@bar.com

#283

Post by radisb »

mcdevilkiller wrote: post #212
akritrime wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mistake made and lesson learnt. After being introduced to the larger internet community via reddit, sometimes you slip up in more serious places like HN.

Yep, Hacker News is like Reddit, without the jokes and porn.

lol

Re: foo@bar.com

#284

Post by dmix »

CydeWeys wrote: post #277
taftster wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but did they sell for $1 million? Or did these "premium" domains sell for something more realistic?

They sold for quite a bit more than $1M, in fact. I would argue that the actual sales are realistic (in the sense that they reflect the actual price that people are willing to pay for them, i.e. their actual value), and it's merely your expectations that are unrealistic. You are significantly underestimating how valuable a good one-word keyword is in a single globally unified namespace used by billions of people dail…

Whoever owned Uber.com was a smart business person and/or a tough negotiator. That’s brilliant. Thanks for the examples.

Note it also lists LasVegas.com for $90 million (in instalments) from 2005.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/08/07/ex...

Re: foo@bar.com

#285

Post by CydeWeys »

Kalium wrote: post #250
linsomniac wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem was that it also broke properly configured domains. We have machines in xxx.dev.example.com (for example) that I used to rely on the resolver searching for, so I could just type "xxx.dev" and it would then know to try it with example.com banged onto the end. Then everything in .dev started resolving so my abbreviations started resolving to other hosts. I mean, I THINK this is "properly configured", but it…

If your machines started exhibiting behavior you didn't expect or intend from a configuration you believe to be proper, then something has gone wrong. It may be the system, it may be the configuration, and it may be your understanding of either. Or any combination. In this particular case it sounds like your resolver was set up to try an external resolution first and then append an internal domain if the external res…

And also, from a larger standpoint, we have a choice of two mutually exclusive options here. It comes down to either (a) freezing the TLD hierarchy in place and never creating any new ones (e.g. not even for a new country, or .mars or whatever), or (b) not retaining indefinite backwards support for multi-label DNS search lists when they happen to collide with new TLDs.

I would argue that, of the two options, option B is the less onerous one, and less restrictive on the future growth of the Internet. It's not that hard to set up some aliases to be able to SSH quickly into the right hosts without having to manually type out longer paths.

Re: foo@bar.com

#286

Post by basch »

still_grokking wrote: post #215
CydeWeys wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Only that the @ ("at") reads terribly than. So com.gmail/cydeweys maybe? Or it could be just an object in a global namespace (accesses through a protocol specific facade). So com.gmail.cydeweys

I would prefer it to read more like UUCP routing. com.twitter@dan

The other nice thing about this system, is that you can drop the domain when the communication is internal.

And if you really wanted to, you could force the communication protocol xmpp//com.twitter@dan vs smtp//com.twitter@dan

Re: foo@bar.com

#287

Post by arendtio »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #9
chrismeller wrote: post #4

Something that I’m surprised a lot of devs don’t know; there are official domains you’re supposed to use for documentation, testing, etc. They are specifically reserved by IANA for these purposes. Originally I think it was just example.com, but they now have a list of all them: https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved

Note that `foo@bar.com` is frequently used to get around the email address requirement, so it is not really for testing. I wouldn't be surprised if prominent websites block any address from example.com or so.

Actually, for a while I used example.com a lot and I was surprised how often it worked just fine.

Re: foo@bar.com

#288

Post by CydeWeys »

cestith wrote: post #281
CydeWeys wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could easily just use a different symbol, or pronounce it differently. We think it makes sense the way it is now, but that's only because we've all collectively gotten used to the meaning it has in email addresses. If it had had a different meaning all along then that would make sense to us. com.gmail.cydeweys doesn't really work because you need some way to distinguish that as an email address and not just a sub…

'@' was used to mean 'at' or 'each' for a long time before email addresses. Often in pricing. '12 @ $3' means twelve units priced at $3 each. It's referred to sometimes as 'commercial at', including its Unicode name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_sign It was used as 'at' in computing in Algol 68 where it was a shorthand for a keyword 'at'. It has a different application as 'at' in Dyalog APL.

It wasn't remotely as familiar to a broad audience back then as it is now, though. Considering that people accept its non-idiomatic use for website user names even now (which is the same as what I'm proposing no less), I don't think this would be a problem.

Re: foo@bar.com

#289

Post by H8crilA »

CydeWeys wrote: post #278
H8crilA wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An asking offer without a bid is just that - an offer. I can ask $1M for that red apple sitting on my desk. It's completely irrelevant. PS. This behavior is quite prominent in real estate prices, they're so slow to fall down. For example the US real estate market bottomed only in 2011. You have to be very patient if you want to buy the dip in such "I will only sell for the right price !!" markets.

Real estate isn't a great example because the carrying costs of unsold property in the form of upkeep, property taxes, mortgage, insurance, etc., are non-trivial. In general it's not remotely reasonable to hold onto property for 20 years without selling it. By contrast, the holding cost on a domain name is effectively zero, so there's much less pressure to get rid of one quickly. Plus, seeing as how the prices have o…

And yet people do it in real estate.

Re: foo@bar.com

#290

Post by tus88 »

bigiain wrote: post #253
colejohnson66 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, technically, opening those emails when they contain confidential information could be construed as a violation of the CFAA (it’s very broad).

Indeed it's probably broad enough that you could likely find an ambulance chaser who'd go after people who _send_ you those emails "in excess of their authorized access" to your mail server. You could weaponise this the same way companies use defensive patents... "Sure, I opened one of your emails, but you've connected to my mail server without authorisation 27,943 time so far this month. Go on, lawyer up. Bring it o…

This.
Post reply on HN