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

Gail.com FAQ

gail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 224 posts

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#161

Post by uconnectlol »

These questions are such typical American logic and why the internet sucks: There exists a thing and so something needs to be done about it. What if they use it to impersonate/phish/etc gmail? It has to be given to google! It happens that some four letter word is my brand, they can't just hold the domain, they have to give it to me! And the old adage "politics is not the solution" really does fix it: domain names are a misconception, use public key based addresses instead. Then there won't be typo squatting, bit squatting, anything. *queue barrage of typical "but what about the dumb user public key is too hard" stuff which all has already been answered ad infinitum*

But you could put ads on it! It's really dumb how people set out to make a blog, then choose one of the free blogging offerings, and since the web is just a bunch of commercial crap, they of course get a commercial platform (instead of how things should be which is something like Freenet and no JS), and then the tutorial tells them how to put ads on and they think "sure why not". That was 10-20 years ago. Of course now if anyone wants to make a blog it was already for profit. This is why the internet is dying and it will be illegal to make a replacement: All these little American-dream people that think its their right to profit off mediocre content are gonna defend any case against the new internet such as "CP" and "copyright" (and any other fabricated "problem", they will just agree with it because they want the new internet dead).

TL;DR the medium is broken and the new american digital worker will legally assault any alternatives

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#162

Post by uconnectlol »

derefr wrote: post #160
bitexploder wrote: post #148

Fun story. Back in day when bitflip domain research was released, I immediately offered it as a service to our customers. Register all available likely typos and bitflips. Computers flip dns lookip bits /surprisingly/ often. Run email, web, and other collectors. See what you get. We got so much legit data. The real good was owning those domains, but it was amazing to see how much compromising and sensitive data we co…

> Computers flip dns lookip bits /surprisingly/ often. Thought 1: is this because of the source/destination computer; or is this because network middleboxes, as embedded devices, are budget-optimized, and so are maybe running their CPUs at funny voltages, with low-quality RAM, etc; and DNS, as a UDP protocol, does little to prevent packets from mutating on the wire? Thought 2: Presumably this would imply that DNS res…

The requesting computer has a bit flip and requests the wrong domain. It even is not stopped by HTTPS depending on where the bit flip happens and how the software is written.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#163

Post by uconnectlol »

londons_explore wrote: post #128

The owner could at least have put a helpful link to gmail.com at the top. Would have saved millions of minor frustrations for millions of people. Or, since they seem not to be using the root of the domain for anything but a smug FAQ, just an HTTP 302 redirect.

American logic. Thing exists, something has to be done about it!

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#164

Post by beaugunderson »

causi wrote: post #60
raesene9 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite 90's style website, that's still running, is http://www.armory.com/armory.html , complete with FTP Index and user finger files.

Man I miss backspacing through a URL and sometimes hitting an FTP page with files I wasn't necessarily supposed to be able to download. Halcyon days.

Funny, my first dial-up ISP was halcyon.com (later Northwest Nexus/WinStar) in the Seattle area around 1999/2000. Halcyon days indeed!

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#165

Post by lurker_jMckQT99 »

ploum wrote: post #124
jaredsohn wrote: post #85

Sort of related: https://asdf.com/asdfemail.html is still going strong. "You would never guess how many people use asdf@asdf.com (or some variant form) as a filler email address across the Internet. Opening up @asdf.com lets in hundreds of email messages a day pertaining to porn site registrations, real audio downloading, mailing lists dealing with Windows NT ... the list goes on and on! If you would really like to s…

This opened up my eyes. My pseudo is "ploum" and I have the ploum.net domain since 2006/2007. I’ve used the ploum@ploum.net adress for years but it became unbearable regarding spam. It took me this post to make the link that, in France, "ploum ploum" means "whatever random thing" and that surely people are filling "ploum@ploum" as a random address in every web form. Must be even worse for the ploum.com domain.

That's a weird take. I am French, I have never heard (except for Téléphone's song) that expression. The closest thing that comes to mind is "plouf plouf".

Wouldn't it simply be because you have been using (and publicly disclosing) that mail address for quite some time and it probably became part of each and every email list script kiddies are able to get their hands on?

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#166

Post by burnte »

uconnectlol wrote: post #162
derefr wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computers flip dns lookip bits /surprisingly/ often. Thought 1: is this because of the source/destination computer; or is this because network middleboxes, as embedded devices, are budget-optimized, and so are maybe running their CPUs at funny voltages, with low-quality RAM, etc; and DNS, as a UDP protocol, does little to prevent packets from mutating on the wire? Thought 2: Presumably this would imply that DNS res…

The requesting computer has a bit flip and requests the wrong domain. It even is not stopped by HTTPS depending on where the bit flip happens and how the software is written.

Is there any data to support the hypothesis that this happens often? I've never experienced it without being a human typo. I find it hard to believe in this day and age we have a single service that has high error rates no one notices.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#167

Post by DavidPeiffer »

weatherlight wrote: post #130
Amorymeltzer wrote: post #125

Previous discussions of note: -2021, 109 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28283890 -2017, 160 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13817969 I am always happy to see this reposted, though.

An email i got from the moderators Hi weatherlight, The submission "Gail.com FAQ" that you posted to Hacker News in September 2019 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20956204) looks good, but didn't get much attention. Would you care to repost it? You can do so using this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/repost?[REDACTED]. If you use the same account (weatherlight), title, and URL, the software will give the rep…

I've had a link that did way better in the second chance pool. It was really neat, I wouldn't have guessed it existed until I got the email. Definitely refreshing to have human moderation for things like this.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#168

Post by fragmede »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #157
hgsgm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things are harmed by putting a maxwidth that limits the line length to something reasonable for the viewport size.

Have you ever met rms? http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...

for the uninitiated, you're looking for an audio file at the above link. you need to delete your HN referrer in order to do that because jwz is a "special" kind of adult.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#169

Post by notamy »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #157
hgsgm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things are harmed by putting a maxwidth that limits the line length to something reasonable for the viewport size.

Have you ever met rms? http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...

Reminder / warning: jwz.org redirects incoming traffic from HN to an NSFW image.

Re: Gail.com FAQ

#170

Post by xigoi »

bityard wrote: post #139
sontek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only complaint is it goes full wide screen. If he put a limit on the width the text expands to so it was readable on large screens that would be perfect.

No, the page layout is likely designed to be readable on anything that speaks HTTP. Including text-based browsers, mobile devices with low bandwidth and performance, screen readers, etc. All you have to do to get the text width you want is resize your browser window.

But then you have to resize it every time you visit a site that can actually make use of the full width, which is frustrating.
Post reply on HN