41–50 of 92 posts
I am in process of determining which registrar to choose for some startups I am setting up..HN users thoughts on past registrars that you have used?
I've used name.com for many years and have always been satisfied with their service. The advertising the author is complaining about only shows up if you do not configure the DNS records or name servers after buying the domain. Usually I spend 30 seconds setting this up as soon as I buy the domain, so the advertising doesn't even cross my mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this practice was pretty standard…
Actually, this isn't just if you don't setup DNS records for your domain name. If you configure some subdomains with name.com, then all other subdomains for that domain go to a parked page. For example, my wife's website is jesleephotos.com. The subdomains store and www (along with some others that I don't wish to advertise :) go to the correct destination. The subdomain stuff, x, random, mail, etc all go to parked d…
Downvotes? For a suggestion that will save this person time and money since they seem to think they need more resources to redirect requests which is inferior and will length time from request to content anyway?
The voting on HN is just crap lately. This is third time in as many days that I've been downvoted for accurate technical information. I'm frankly growing weary of it.
I use name.com for quite a few domains. They have a very convenient way to do bulk changes, so you can, for example, select 50 domains at once, and tell name.com to change all of them to your name servers. They email you a few minutes later when they've done it. I always just change them to linode as soon as I buy a domain. I don't begrudge them this income stream from people who buy domains but don't do anything wit…
The harm is that they're effectively typo-squatting my domain, as well as all the rest of their customers' domains which don't use wildcard A records. They're breaking DNS. Typo-squatting is addressed by both the ACPA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro... ) and the UDRP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Res... ). And worse, you're held responsible for the content o…
I feel like you're not. When the subpoena is served, it will be to the owner of the IP with the content on it, not the owner of a random DNS entry that happens to resolve to that IP. Even if it does, I imagine the exchange going like this: "Your honor, I have no access to that server and can't control the content in any way." "Right, this is a waste of my time."
Contracts can say whatever they want. Whether or not they are actually enforceable is a whole 'nother ball game.
Have you tried Namecheap? I register all of my domains with them and they've always exceeded my expectations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing I'm not willing to do is set up a wildcard A record Why not? I'm being earnest here, I'm a name.com customer and I do have such a wildcard record. Are you building a network service that relies on nonexistent subdomains being resolved at the DNS level (rather than a 404 page or a redirect to a subdomain that does exist)? Or is it more of a philosophical thing?
1. I don't want to provide multiple entry points. As an intentionally vulgar example, http://f***you.example.com would resolve if using a wildcard address. That is unacceptable. 2. I'm in the process of setting up a self-assembling system that will need to be environment aware (public, staging, dev). If I redirect everything to a single A record I actually have to perform logic on my end. A failed request will instea…
if ($host !~ "^(example.com|beta.example.com|valid.example)$") {
rewrite ^/(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 permanent;
}
or
http://fuckshit.example.com/about
becomes
This is good practice in any case, so that you're always serving up the canonical URL.
So, um, what's a good alternative to all of these?
And of course they don't do any of these shady things common with big-name US registrars - it's your domain, they just provide DNS and registration.
I've used name.com for many years and have always been satisfied with their service. The advertising the author is complaining about only shows up if you do not configure the DNS records or name servers after buying the domain. Usually I spend 30 seconds setting this up as soon as I buy the domain, so the advertising doesn't even cross my mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this practice was pretty standard…
I've used name.com for many years and have always been satisfied with their service. The advertising the author is complaining about only shows up if you do not configure the DNS records or name servers after buying the domain. Usually I spend 30 seconds setting this up as soon as I buy the domain, so the advertising doesn't even cross my mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this practice was pretty standard…
I configured the DNS immediately. However, one thing I'm not willing to do is set up a wildcard A record for my hosted zone when the request should be returning an nxdomain instead. There is no way in name.com's setting to enable that. On an ethical level this is closer to typo-squatting, something that there are rules against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I don't want to provide multiple entry points. As an intentionally vulgar example, http://f***you.example.com would resolve if using a wildcard address. That is unacceptable. 2. I'm in the process of setting up a self-assembling system that will need to be environment aware (public, staging, dev). If I redirect everything to a single A record I actually have to perform logic on my end. A failed request will instea…
For most people the solution is very simple. Use a rewrite rule in your web server config. In nginx: if ($host !~ "^(example.com|beta.example.com|valid.example)$") { rewrite ^/(.*)$ http://example.com/$1 permanent; } http://www.example.com/about or http://fuckshit.example.com/about becomes http://example.com/about This is good practice in any case, so that you're always serving up the canonical URL.