@dang can you update the domain extraction logic for hn titles to include the 3rd level domain for .name domains? It's a little too poetically unfortunate that HN lists the domain on this article as `fraser.name`
Sure. We have this for countries, like "example.co.uk", so I made "name" be a country and it...just works (maybe). You only get a first name and a last name and a .name though. You can't be robert.louis.stevenson.name - just louis.stevenson.name. (Incidentally, this was a Claude suggestion. The change only took a couple minutes but figuring out what mechanism in the code could do this would have taken me a lot longer…
.name Termination
561–568 of 568 posts
Re: .name Termination
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do if they are employed in a non-tiny company where they work at least partially on a computer and paid attention during security training.
Even if I agree with you that the "average person" meets the 3 specific criteria you list (which I don't), I don't believe the claim that the typical security training includes specific instruction in how TLDs and domain registration work, at least not in enough detail for a person to be able to follow the discussion we're having here.
Mine just has an animated llama telling me not to click suspicious links in emails
Re: .name Termination
#563In 1992, I got myself an AT&T EasyReach 700 number. It was going to be my phone number for life. They killed that a couple years later. Then I got an AT&T True Connections 500 number. It was going to be my phone number for life. That died a few years later too.
And what lesson have you learned?
Re: .name Termination
#564Re: .name Termination
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet that is a problem the owner of such a domain has freely entered into by buying that domain, it's their right to keep it despite this apparent problem, if they wish.
Understood, and .name isn't being used enough in business to worry about 'the effect it will have on my users'. Just pointing out that it doesn't work like the 'norm' (although I guess it's not quite as unique as I thought, either)
Re: .name Termination
#566Re: .name Termination
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean wildcard domain? Are you perhaps confusing domain renewals with dns entries?
Instead of registering foo.com, and having bob.foo.com, they would register bobfoo.com - they had hundreds or thousands of certs, as a result, and had to renew them all annually or biannually. We didn't even manage all of the domains, we just had to renew the ones our group was responsible for, and it was in the dozens, and each form was ~30-40 actions to fill out correctly. I forget whether they were quarterly or we…
You'd be surprised
and renewing annually is a great way to accidentally forget some of these and let someone use them to hack your customers
Re: .name Termination
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, .name filled an actual need for general non ccTLD That's a silly idea. While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google", so that it's relatively unambiguous who `google.com` should refer to, there is no uniqueness whatsoever to personal names. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people called "John Smith", so the FQDN `john.smith.name.` would not really…
> While there are laws that ensure to a decent extent that there is a single company called "Google" There aren't laws to ensure that. Within specific jurisdictions, sure, but not globally. A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records. The lack of more namespaces also led…
Many trademarks are indeed more or less global.
> A lot of companies also don't trade under their full name. Apple, famously, wasn't founded as Apple but as Apple Computer, and was only able to rename after achieving a deal with Apple Records.
That's irrelevant - Apple Computers owns the Apple trademark (for certain industries).
> The lack of more namespaces also led to things like nissan.com being owned by Uzi Nissan (and now his family, I assume) rather than the car company.
It's not perfect and not guaranteed to be unique, yes. But people's names have many orders of magnitude more collisions.
> @.name as an email address.
No, you'd at best get `??@firstname.lastname.name` as your email address. Which, again, is irrelevant, as it's impossible to say which of the many thousands of Firstname Lastname people this might belong to.
> (The cultural aspect is irrelevant - it was not enforcing a specific order. If people wanted to register lastname.firstname.com, nothing would stop that)
I wasn't referring to a specific order, but to the cultural idea that people have 1 firstname and 1 lastname. In Spain, for example, people typically have 1 first name and 2 last names - but you couldn't get `a.b.c.name` as an address. Having a first name, a middle name, and a last name is also very common.
There are also cultures where people simply have one name, not first + last. For example, a person's full legal name in Tibet might just be "Woeser".