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

251–260 of 301 posts

Re: foo@bar.com

#251

Post by ShinTakuya »

taftster wrote: post #237
CydeWeys wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hotels.com? uber.com? stamps.com? There's lots of really big businesses built around single word domains. Not every single one of them of course, but definitely enough for good domains to be immensely valuable.

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

You'd be surprised. Not going to name anyone in particular but I know of multiple major one word domains that have been bought for that order of magnitude (some more, some less). For certain companies, that's chump change compared to the additional traffic a good domain name will bring their business.

Re: foo@bar.com

#252

Post by bigiain »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #150
davemtl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I've owned `invaliddomain.com` for almost 20 years. You'll be surprised how many use it for testing. One morning I woke up to 30,000 e-mails from Sony Japan with PDFs attached of scanned hand-written part orders. Something similar with Boeing sending me backup notifications. I notified each of these companies about their configuration through their official channels, only to be told "no, it's your server doin…

I remember reading - long time ago - a story of a developer who used http://xxx as a placeholder for unknown domains, until at some point the browsers started resolved single-word links into www. .com... :-o

Back in the days before I'd ever heard of multicast DNS or zeroconf networking, I had a local dns server set up with all our subdomain.ourdomain.com duplicated as subdomain.ourdomain.local and pointing to our local dev/staging versions of our websites. It worked wonderfully, until I think MacOS 10.2 arrived (so, like 20 years ago almost) which had mDNS support for the first time and "broke" it all on me...

I switched to using subdomain.ourdomain.staging instead and got on with life. I wonder if anyone's gonna have to deal with the fallout of that decision when someone oneway pays ICANN enough money to own the .staging TLD?

(I wonder how much "interesting" stuff would land in your mail/web/ssh/whatever log files, if you registered .staging and .dev and just logged everything that came past (or intentionally/actively honey potted everything there?)

Re: foo@bar.com

#253

Post by bigiain »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #210
tus88 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you tell them and bring an end to the lolz?

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 on!"

Re: foo@bar.com

#254

Post by ben0x539 »

monadic2 wrote: post #113
CydeWeys wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.app, .dev, .prod, and .zip all had substantial volume of problematic traffic that was discovered during the Controlled Interruption period (which occurs prior to launch and consists of a wildcard DNS entry placed on the entire TLD). You would not believe some of the brokenness that was happening there. .zip may need some explanation -- apparently there are lots of library API calls out there that take a path string…

Ruby's `open` accepts urls. I can't say I've ever used this functionality.

I've only ever used it for that! For files there's `File.open`! ;)

Re: foo@bar.com

#255

Post by chipotle_coyote »

bigiain wrote: post #247
johnzim wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just never should have allowed filename extensions to have semantic power. Resource forks are far more elegant and you could do simple look ahead checks to verify types etc.

Back in '81 when MS-DOS came out and ascribed "magical power" fo files ending in ".com", DNS didn't exist (except possibly as experiments stuff between a handful of university or military mainframes). It was also an era where the vast majority of users of those .com files were doing so off 5 1/4" floppies (or possibly even 8" floppies), and the very idea of adding "resource forks" to your on-disk data would have been…

The magical power of extensions actually predates MS-DOS -- both CP/M and TRSDOS did the same thing in the late 70s, and I'm pretty sure both of those were inspired by mainframe operating systems. (I was a TRS-80 kid, and didn't know until much later why our equivalent of batch files had the extension "JCL".)

Having said that, though, we could at least wish that some variant of the Mac's old idea of separate creator and document codes stored as metadata had caught on. Sure, it'd have been a few more bytes per directory entry (to be specific, five more bytes!), but it was a lot more flexible -- and if more operating systems had been built with that "document types are metadata" idea, that metadata could have been replaced with MIME types later on, like it was on BeOS.

Re: foo@bar.com

#256

Post by xmprt »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #101
davemtl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I've owned `invaliddomain.com` for almost 20 years. You'll be surprised how many use it for testing. One morning I woke up to 30,000 e-mails from Sony Japan with PDFs attached of scanned hand-written part orders. Something similar with Boeing sending me backup notifications. I notified each of these companies about their configuration through their official channels, only to be told "no, it's your server doin…

> "no, it's your server doing this" at that point i expected the story to go "and then they sued me for stealing their documents"

He orchestrated a man in the middle attack by being in the middle of the engineers and their incompetence.

Re: foo@bar.com

#257

Post by xmprt »

BerislavLopac wrote: post #150
davemtl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I've owned `invaliddomain.com` for almost 20 years. You'll be surprised how many use it for testing. One morning I woke up to 30,000 e-mails from Sony Japan with PDFs attached of scanned hand-written part orders. Something similar with Boeing sending me backup notifications. I notified each of these companies about their configuration through their official channels, only to be told "no, it's your server doin…

I remember reading - long time ago - a story of a developer who used http://xxx as a placeholder for unknown domains, until at some point the browsers started resolved single-word links into www. .com... :-o

I was about 5 seconds away from clicking this link on my work laptop until I realized what it would redirect to. For others like me, it's very NSFW

Re: foo@bar.com

#258

Post by Agentlien »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #199

I own a curse word (Swedish) domain and I get quite a lot of similar emails. Nowhere close to thousands per day though. Still the level where I can answer the emails with a bad joke.

Would you mind telling which word? Fellow Swede wondering.

Re: foo@bar.com

#259

Post by abiogenesis »

monadic2 wrote: post #113
CydeWeys wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.app, .dev, .prod, and .zip all had substantial volume of problematic traffic that was discovered during the Controlled Interruption period (which occurs prior to launch and consists of a wildcard DNS entry placed on the entire TLD). You would not believe some of the brokenness that was happening there. .zip may need some explanation -- apparently there are lots of library API calls out there that take a path string…

Ruby's `open` accepts urls. I can't say I've ever used this functionality.

I don't know Ruby enough to comment on that but I would guess it requires a scheme as well.

Re: foo@bar.com

#260

Post by sellyme »

gwright wrote: post #246
ssorallen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I was unaware of this. I found the relevant section in the doc that was linked from your original link: 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as listed and described below. .test .example .invalid .localhost * ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS related code. * ".example" is recommended for use in documentatio…

I learned about .invalid last year and had an immediate use for it where we needed a syntactically valid email to match a schema but didn't want it to be deliverable. I discovered quickly that some other systems wouldn't accept the placeholder emails such as notused@email.invalid. Too many systems try to be too smart about the syntax of emails (+ subaddressing is another minefield). Had to go back to using something…

> + subaddressing is another minefield

I'm still not sure if this is because the developers are incompetent and don't understand that they can just used an established standard instead of rolling their own janky parser, or if it's because they just don't want to let the user tell who had their databases leaked or sold their email to a spam list.

I used to think the former because there's so many different solutions to the latter that don't involve actively annoying the people you're trying to extract money from, but I'm starting to think that it's a little from column A and a little from column B.

Post reply on HN