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

I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

tinyprojects.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 642 posts

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#451

Post by chaos_a »

cmehdy wrote: post #261
Theory5 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a security person its hard as heck training (some of) our users to understand how basic domain formats work. We use a phishing simulation service, and outside of certain content,putting part or all of our company name in the domain but adding other words/underscores/etc is what tricks a lot of people. I tend to explain how it works in a basic format, and often you can see the light bulb go off when I point out how…

This stuff is not really well made for normal people, to be honest. Just look at all the discussions and troubles (tickets, misunderstandings, security risks) related to email and hyperlink parsers.. It took me a while to know that FQDNs can (and sometimest must?) start at root with a period, meaning every address you've ever typed could have finished with a period (news.ycombinator.com.) and I recall some newspaper…

This root period was mentioned on reddit a while ago because the domain "youtube.com." would fail to serve ads.

https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/gzr3cq/fyi_you_can_...

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#452

Post by _AzMoo »

Grakel wrote: post #444
rhythmofrest wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take "things you can do when you're single"... can't quite imagine sidling up to significant other with the gambit "Darling, would you mind terribly if I spent £1000 on Kazakhstani emoji domains?"

I'll never understand this, but I see it all the time. People should have shared money, and they should also have their own money. Does my wife like it when I buy myself expensive toys? I have no idea, it's irrelevant unless I stop covering the bills.

When your family has limited resources and needs to prioritise it's frustrating when somebody chooses to use those resources on frivolity.

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#454

Post by coolspot »

atleta wrote: post #388
rhythmofrest wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take "things you can do when you're single"... can't quite imagine sidling up to significant other with the gambit "Darling, would you mind terribly if I spent £1000 on Kazakhstani emoji domains?"

But why would you do that? I mean if that's you money, why would you ask your partner? I'm pretty frugal, don't spend on stupid things easily (well, things that I find stupid, at least), but if I had a business idea or even a fun project I don't think I'd need permission from my partner to spend my own money on it. Discussing it is a different story, of course.

Maybe in a “partnership” you don’t need to ask a “partner”.

But in marriage you don’t have “your money” - you are both on the same team, so all money are shared. If you spend $1000 on something random, that sets your team, your family, back of its common goals - house down payment, vacation, etc.

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#455

Post by scubbo »

kevinmgranger wrote: post #400
scubbo wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so, that's actually the same as #!$%&’*@example.com (mail user 'foo+bar' is the same as 'foo'). Many webforms/DBs don't know that. Actually, no. To the best of my knowledge (and I'd be delighted to be corrected!), that's merely a convention that lots of providers (including GMail) conform to, but it's not part of the RFC or standards. Don't get me wrong - it irritates me when that very-common behaviour isn't sup…

It's explicitly called out in RFC5233, at least: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233

TIL, thank you!

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#456

Post by scubbo »

School-Cotton wrote: post #362
scubbo wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so, that's actually the same as #!$%&’*@example.com (mail user 'foo+bar' is the same as 'foo'). Many webforms/DBs don't know that. Actually, no. To the best of my knowledge (and I'd be delighted to be corrected!), that's merely a convention that lots of providers (including GMail) conform to, but it's not part of the RFC or standards. Don't get me wrong - it irritates me when that very-common behaviour isn't sup…

You are right. In fact, RFC 5321 specifically forbids you from interpreting the local part of an address in any way. > the local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address.

See your sibling comment for another perspective! (EDIT: which, to be clear, doesn't invalidate your point. Though it's worth considering, I guess, whether "only assigned semantics by the host specified in the domain" prevents user-tracking systems from calling "foo+bar@gmail.com" the same user as "foo@gmail.com". After all - if they're being interpreted "as" user IDs, rather than as emails, does that really breach the RFC?)

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#457

Post by emodendroket »

enriquto wrote: post #42
scbrg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting Unicode characters comes with a set of complications that you may want to address, as, for instance the infamous HTML-parsing with regex rant shows. As soon as you start trying to address those, the simple problem suddenly grows quite a lot in scope.

Notice that HN already does support unicode: α β γ é ö 本 It actively filters out a small part of it, mostly emojis (which I think that it is a good thing to do).

What exactly are we afraid will happen if someone uses an emoji instead of typing :) ?

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#458

Post by tshaddox »

tialaramex wrote: post #161
londons_explore wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really surprised they didn't do the logical thing and grandfather all existing domains in when the UK left the EU. It seems like the policy was simply designed to frustrate as many people as possible for no real gain for the EU.

The EU continues to control .eu because it is available only to EU citizens. Nothing changed. Your surprise exactly reflects the typical beliefs of a Brexit supporter, you thought the idea is you get to keep all the benefits you had before, and also you get rid of any downsides you didn't like, and somehow it's the EU's job to help you achieve this after you leave. That didn't make any sense in 2016, and it still did…

It might make sense for certain Internet resources to be made available only to citizens of some political region. It might make sense to revoke access to such resources if an individual renounced their citizenship or loses it due to their own actions (like, say, treason). But it really doesn’t make much sense that I could lose access to an arbitrary Internet resource I legitimately possessed because of large-scale political changes unrelated to my actions as an individual.

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#459

Post by NullPrefix »

wongarsu wrote: post #88
capableweb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, and .kz is the ccTLD for Kazakhstan. You think people can't realize the difference?

Germany is a bit over the top in this regard. When abbreviating a name to two letters (like as an avatar or as a short form for a newspaper author name) we usually specifically avoid KZ, HJ, NS, SA, SS. You also can't get those in a license plate. There must be some demographic which cares. I've personally only seen people amused by it.

Could you please explain HJ, NS and SA?

Re: I bought 300 emoji domain names from Kazakhstan and built an email service

#460

Post by konschubert »

_AzMoo wrote: post #452
Grakel wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never understand this, but I see it all the time. People should have shared money, and they should also have their own money. Does my wife like it when I buy myself expensive toys? I have no idea, it's irrelevant unless I stop covering the bills.

When your family has limited resources and needs to prioritise it's frustrating when somebody chooses to use those resources on frivolity.

You can still have personal budgets, even if they are very small. Heck, when things are tight, even having 10 Euro personal "fun money" a month for each partner can give a bit of freedom.
Post reply on HN