Live data from Hacker News

.garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

discourse.ifin.network

31–33 of 33 posts

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For businesses, it's not a valid reason to not block .garden simply because a gardening site exists. If a site is important enough, exceptions to the blanket rule can be applied. In general though, if you want Fortune 500s to utilize your service/company, don't utilize a novelty TLD.

Blanket ban rules are extremely lazy and unacceptable in 2026, especially for Fortune 500s. It’s extremely cheap to use a scoring system instead.

You say this as if the people implementing TLD blocks even understand what the term scoring system means

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#32
post #4

A concrete counterexample: plantura.garden is a large, reputable German-language gardening magazine / brand, and probably exactly the kind of legitimate site one would expect on .garden. So while the abuse numbers may well justify treating newly registered / low-reputation .garden domains with suspicion, blanket-blocking the entire TLD seems like it would create real collateral damage.

[dead]

Re: .garden TLD's change to a bad neighborhood

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For businesses, it's not a valid reason to not block .garden simply because a gardening site exists. If a site is important enough, exceptions to the blanket rule can be applied. In general though, if you want Fortune 500s to utilize your service/company, don't utilize a novelty TLD.

Blanket ban rules are extremely lazy and unacceptable in 2026, especially for Fortune 500s. It’s extremely cheap to use a scoring system instead.

They really aren't when you are operating at ISP scale. Especially when there are 20+ years of evidence of said scoring systems being abused until they calcified into the mess that is modern email hosting
Post reply on HN