Live data from Hacker News

Never buy a .online domain

0xsid.com

181–190 of 513 posts

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#181

Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…

I prefer "please verify your account" to "thanks for joining" by a lot. The former presumably does not verify when I ignore it. The latter should be illegal but somehow isn't. I do wish there was a requirement for some sort of "no" button that would stop sending sign up requests entirely.

Any idea what the incentive is for them to put in an email address they can't access?

I run a few websites that accept an email address (all noncommercial, I have no interest in spamming anyone). One of them is the "contact me" feature on my personal website. To prevent spam, I had people just put in their email address and it'll automatically email them my email address. This works perfectly to this day, haven't got a single spam email on any of the addresses I've handed out, but the ratio of emails sent out to received is probably 50 to 1. Why would anyone put an email address in there if not to contact me? I've been wondering if it's used by mail bombing services, idk if that's a thing but I know of the concept of annoying someone by signing them up for a hundred newsletters. My site doesn't send recurring emails, though, and it doesn't allow putting more than two email addresses per month in, per /24 IPv4 block (and even more strict on v6). It's useless for mail bombing services but the (presumed) bots keep submitting a steady rate of maybe 2 new email addresses per day, each time from a new ISP in a random country. No email addresses is ever submitted twice. No rhyme or reason to it. If anyone can make sense of this, that might help me in stopping the abuse

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#182
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is to stop Google et. al. from also adding a lot of excess domains to pump up there numbers? What is to stop everyone from doing this blacklisting?

Google doesn't sell their list to you. They give it to you for free. Using their list costs them money. Pumping up numbers gains them nothing but the headache of PR issues when they get a false positive. Spyware filters used to boast about how many domains they filter out because they wanted you to buy their filters instead of someone else's. By the time they hit a false positive, they've already sold a year's subscr…

Not true. Commercial or large scale use requires you to use their Web Risk API instead which is a paid service

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#183
The logic doesn't automatically extend to other TLDs unless they too are owned by the same firm. Alternative TLDs are often preferable because they're so much cheaper than wasting money on a .com, etc.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#185

The registrar relying on Google Safe Browsing as a “trigger” for suspension is the most horrifying thing I’ve seen in a while. This basically makes the entire TLD unviable for serious use.

This is the real story. This is 100% a problem with Radix. Safe browsing targets the website not the domain. No reason a registrar should be suspending an entire account over something a company reports. Black-holing the A and CNAMEs on a subdomain? Maybe..... But even then I don't think it's the registrars place to do that. Freezing the entire account? Absolutely not.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the opinion is meant to be just another opinion, then it shouldn't cause any blacklisting of any sorts anywhere. I agree with this! The registrar should not have triggered a suspension because of this. They're not obligated to, and the two processes should be decoupled.

The registrar should ignore reports of abuse, especially if coming from an authoritative source with vast resources that's been collecting reports on its own? No. The source should be more careful. It's the equivalent of a renowned newspaper printing warning a restaurant being unsafe to visit. Should the customers' willingness to visit be magically decoupled from this opinion?

It's like a renowned newspaper saying the restaurant is unsafe, and then also the restaurant's landlord taking it at face value and locking the doors without further investigation. Both can be wrong.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#187
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google wants you to use it. If it blacklists excess domains that hold legitimate sites, their product gets worse. If they blacklist illegitimate sites, their product gets better.

Cute. That is the commenter’s whole point about monopolies. Google is on record making their product worse to squeeze revenue. We’ve been living in the enshitification economy.

> We’ve been living in the enshitification economy.

that whiny bullshit about somebody elses website? you dont have to rely on a website or app. either you need their monopoly because you cant do it yourself, or you have options.... in both cases the whining is not needed

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#188
post #145
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) It's not about how it's stated, but whether it can be objectively proven to be true or false. "unsafe" refers to the likelihood of something bad happening in the future. You can't prove that something bad will happen in the future, so it's opinion.

Also not a lawyer, but that makes intuitive sense. If I say "that food tastes bad", it's phrased as a fact, but a "reasonable person" (which is in fact a legal test used for some things, although I admit I'm not sure about libel) knows that there's an implicit "...to me" qualifier because the concept of taste itself is inherently subjective. My instinct is that while there are some things everyone would agree on as u…

"Unsafe" is just a terribly vague word, too. As a layman, I wouldn't even know what that means with respect to a web site. What's "unsafe" about it? Is it going to shoot my dog? Is it going to drain my bank account? Is it going to give my computer a virus? Saying a web site is "unsafe" really isn't providing any interesting information, and it shouldn't be acted upon by pretty much anyone.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#189

Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. This goes right to the top for me, along the ubiquitous "please verify your account" emails with NO OPTION to click "that's NOT me, somebody misused my email". Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job, or, depressingly more likely, their goals are just complet…

> Either people who do this for a living have no clue how to do their job,

how naive. most of the world work to survive, not because its their dream vocation. they probably dont care as much as you do

Post reply on HN