The .ing top-level domain • Hacker News Board

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#81

Post by heipei » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #2

Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a blatant money-grab.

Ugh, when I saw the HN headline about this TLD I thought it belonged to ING Group, just like .barclays and .chase belong to their corporate owners. Just shows how suited this TLD is for phishing...

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#82

Post by genezeta » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #50

cjdrake wrote: post #4

Nobody owns f**.ing yet?

dat.ing is still available.

dingal seems to be available too.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#83

Post by tempay » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

cochne wrote: post #20

huhtenberg wrote: post #7

> suisse.ing Yeah, excellent.

For those who are unaware 'engineering' in Swiss German is "Ingenieurwissenschaften"

Is that an obvious association to the relavent audience? Mixing the French “suisse” with the German abbreviated “ing” is a little odd to my (french) eyes. Or is suisse also common in Swiss German?

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#84

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#85

Post by jowea » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:31 PM UTC

have_faith wrote: post #74

SXX wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly phish.ing is over $1000 / year.

But think of the return

Think of how funny it will be when you send out a social engineering training test email with that URL to your company and see who falls for it.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#86

Post by ddlsmurf » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #2

Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a blatant money-grab.

or maybe they'll buy a whole bunch of insult domains imveryunhappywith.ing dontuse.ing, yourmotherhasapreferenceformassagetoolsfrom.ing

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#87

Post by YeahThisIsMe » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

baz00 wrote: post #78

doh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fuck.ing costs only $12,999.99/yr.

Not joking I seriously considered snagging that. Reckon I could turn a profit. The I realised I'd have to deal with the people who'd want to buy it and they are mostly scum.

Sounds like the perfect group of people to take financial advantage of.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#88

Post by Devasta » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

Another tld to add to the corporate filters.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#89

Post by disjunct » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

baz00 wrote: post #78

doh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fuck.ing costs only $12,999.99/yr.

Not joking I seriously considered snagging that. Reckon I could turn a profit. The I realised I'd have to deal with the people who'd want to buy it and they are mostly scum.

snagg.ing

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#90

Post by acheron » Wed, Nov 01, 2023, 7:36 PM UTC

gnu8 wrote: post #10

The DNS is serious internet infrastructure, not your play toy. The practice of selling TLDs to every two bit dotcom was a mistake and needs to end.

But ICANN makes a lot of money off of it, and isn't that the important thing?