Then the registrars started offering 1st year registration at $0.99/year and all the spammers jumped aboard.
Came to a point where .info was the equivalent of .spam
At least if you buy a traditional ccTLD like .ca , or a regular TLD in .com , .net , whatever, you can expect pricing to remain consistent.
Otherwise, after sufficiently ruining .fun, I'm sure the spam crowd will just move on to the next cheap TLD until that one gets saturated and so on.
If I control the rDNS for a public IP I can set it to anything I want. Of course if I want any chance at all for mail delivery the rDNS for the smtpd needs to be the same as its 'forward' DNS name and name in the MX records.
But you're much better blocking by IP RBL (ex: many /16 to /18 sized blocks of taiwanese DSL ISPs are blocked in all the major RBLs), using tools like spamassassin on your incoming smtpd, opendkim integrated with your smtpd for incoming DKIM verification, and generally filtering by content.
I mailed NameCheap multiple times about this, they keep telling me they cannot do anything about it.
.bid seems to be 35% bad which is not all that bad if they have been offering $1 domains for long. So maybe they take some actions through the registrars to stay bellow being presumed spam by default or maybe not enough of these unique domains are getting reported..
The hoops to send have existed for a long time and simply evolve. A push protocol without trust is a pretty bad idea after all.. So bad the fax machine needed the legal system to inflict severe punishments for the physical resources consumed by unwanted push (in theory if not practice.)
Well, the real question is, is there some regulation from ICANN in regards of terminating a gTLD who is not for private use? I can understand that if I want to waste 185k into my very own gTLD then I can terminate it whenever I want, but what happens when I commercialize it?
Does ICANN have a plan for transition for failed TLDs? It's not unrealistic to suggest the owners of .space or something could just go belly up.
ORLY? Where were you in the summer of '87?
But I think it was pretty obvious that the poster you're replying to was referring to the commercialized era of the internet.
(Although the other theory is that the poster was born after 1994 (not long odds on that one, given the local demographics), and doesn't know much about the Internet's history prior to Eternal September.)
EDIT: The Gestating thing was clever. Thank you.
Is this kind of name spec-compliant?
(Also notable, they have an A record on the hostname "ai." - you can see their website at http://ai./)
then browsers started to support it, but over time bugs pilled up and now it is treated as a different hostname (e.g. "www.example.org" is completely different to your browser than "www.example.org." even though they are the same to the dns spec)
then tls specs considers the dot in an earlier version, and they should be the same but because of the browser bugs it is all too much fun. my bank actually has a server that replies the same for domains with or without the root dot. but they only signed their certs for the no dot name, which again, is the same, but for browsers is kinda of not.
ah! living Standards.
The other use is in DNS zone files where everything that does not end in a '.' get the name of the zone appended.
The for mail (SMTP) the dot at the end is implicitly present, and adding one is not allowed.
HTML/HTTP basically doesn't define semantics with respect to the dot at the end. That's why "www.example.org" and "www.example.org." are different. They are different strings, and nobody defined them to be equivalent. At the same time, the name is just passed to the stub resolver in many cases. So search lists may be applied under the hood.
Another example of a rule that's optional for them is ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Indeed, only some of them have adopted it, with others using a variation and still others not basing any of their dispute mechanisms on the UDRP.
My (sister) company has the .schwarz tld, and they use email@example.com. Such a waste, really.
Most websites will probably validate email addresses with regexes that expect a dot in the host part.
Validation emails also come with the added benefit of ensuring people enter their correct address (is not just randomly mashing the keyboard). Of course that doesn't stop them from using multiple addresses nor those burner address services, but neither would regex.
The problem is validation emails take more dev time to build so some people get lazy and use form validation such as regex instead.
If for example during a typical registration process the software merely sends an email instead of also trying to validate the address first the user either has to wait until the email has arrived before entering the remaining data or otherwise might end up with invalid registration data that cannot be retrieved anymore. In this case, the user would have to start over again.
This problem could be alleviated by having a two-step process, during which the software merely asks for the email address in the first step and the remaining data can only be filled in after the email address has been verified. However, depending on the requirements of the software it might make sense to not just ask for the email address but additional required information during the first step as well, in which case validating with regular expressions provides a better user experience through feedback.
... only to people who are not listening to the complaints from users whose perfectly valid mailboxes are rejected by such systems. It seems somewhat hypocritical for designers to go on about "good user experience" when the user experience in practice turns out to be that it is impossible to give the system their actual electronic mail addresses at all.
Then you could do the hard-fail checks very conservatively and still catch some mistakes early.
The idea here is to help the user avoid mistakes not to actually verify the email address. That's happening at a later stage, i.e. when the user clicks on a confirmation link.
your regex is too strict and doesn't accept all valid email addresses. my."really uncommon".firstname.lastname@example.org is a valid email address that you would be rejecting.
the sane regex is /.+@.+/. Anything beyond checking for an @ is getting into very complicated territory (even the domain part allows stuff like round and square brackets)
Anyway, the point is to assist the user, not to verify the email address actually is valid.
My simple gmail address gets added to some new service by someone with a similar name at least once a week. And those services may or may not ask for confirmation, but then proceed to not care either way. It's super annoying. I get that people sometimes can't be bothered to confirm an account, but it still feels somehow very wrong.
If you're unsure whether you've already registered an account, I could understand the frustration of finding your "proper" dot configuration, but as a developer I'd figure that to be your problem.
I'm in progress to migrating to an e-mail in my own domain, and I'm enjoying the extra control it gives me. I now use e-mails in the form of email@example.com, which get internally translated to username+label@mydomain. Beyond solving problems with broken registration forms, it also makes it more difficult for spammers/data brokers to normalize the address - I assume most won't bother.
With Gmail you can move the dot around, it's effectively stripped, to make sorta unique ones. But everyone serious about validating against Gmail knows to strip it out.
They found it unbelievable that my email address could match their domain, and assumed I'd made a mistake.
I honestly cannot register to a good 80% of the sites I want to.
Though you could argue that there are good reasons to disallow ip-based email addresses.
> host -t aaaa dk.
dk has IPv6 address 2a01:630:0:40::58
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7085 (Top-Level Domains That Are Already Dotless)
A bit like in x.400 you could have a mail address of say C=UK CN=brian" but only if you where the ADMD operator - btw my boss did have that email address when I worked on x.400
Our own little club under one TLD as it were...
That's not really enforceable, is it?
> It could become a nice little corner of the internet where people like us can run stuff for each other, and the unwashed masses never visit.
Why not register a domain and offer subdomains for sale?
I think so. It's just a matter of the registrar removing the feature that allows transfers of domains between accounts. I guess you can still try "selling" a domain by actually putting a price on forfeiting a domain back to the registrar and giving a chance to the "buyer" to buy it from the registrar at its price. This, however, puts the buyer at risk that the registrar might put an elevated price on the domain and also that someone else that was watching for a domain to be let go might buy it first.
In order to ensure that all registrars do remove the feature for this domain, the registry for that domain would have to include such a clause in the contract it would have with these registrars.
dot-Jaruzel? You could make a religion out of that.
 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registry-agreemen... "...ICANN's Preliminary Determination shall not prohibit ICANN from delegating the gTLD pursuant to a future application process for the delegation of top-level-domains, subject to any processes ... intended to protect the rights of third parties."
New gTLDs have been around since 2013 -- five years. I can't think of a single one that I'd consider as legitimate as .com. I can, however, think of a bunch that are frequently used for spam and other abuse...
I wonder how many websites are served entirely through Google. Browsing with Chrome or Chromium, custom DNS set to 220.127.116.11, domain name from .app, "cached" by AMP, serving an Angular app with Material UI, originally hosted on Google Cloud.
Google wouldn't even have to index it.. they know everything about it already.
I trust Google to have the internet's best interests at heart way more than I trust GoDaddy and their ilk.
The Year of the Alternative gTLD is coming!
Any day now...
Like where I'm in India, Nike is substantially more expensive precisely because there are too many crappy shoes in the market. Nike is more "exclusive" and thus, pricier (and vice versa).
Another reason is the low education among ordinary users about the new TLDs. Everyone automatically defaults to assuming that your site is on .com
Companies stand to lose a lot of type-in traffic because of this. Which is why as soon as a business becomes large enough, it tries to go for its .com version. But since the .com version is already taken, and the owner knows the growing company wants it, he can dictate a higher price
But is Nike expensive because they want to be exclusive, or because there exist other players in the shoe market? For example, I could invent a flying car and sell it at high prices, so it's both a flying car and a status symbol. Then in 20 years, my patent expires and others can make cheaper models, but if I don't change my price, my brand brand will maintain its status symbol. I don't think the availability of other players in the market affects the price.
> Everyone automatically defaults to assuming that your site is on .com
Yes, but is that new? People already assumed that and this is not caused by gTLDs, so it does not drive the value of .com domains up beyond what they already were.
For a popular gTLD, the auction can go into several million dollars. .shop, for instance, closed at $41.5M 
I thought ICANN was a non-profit? Is it the usual "yeah but we really needed $5000 meeting room chairs and our CEO needs a competitive $10m salary otherwise we can't keep him on"?
There was a comment thread about how the bidding process worked in 2016:
I assume nobody is going to pay $185k for a hobby project.
This is sufficient up until a few thousand domains. Of course that's not the common case, but the "plus infra and expertise" part is negligible compared to the ICANN fee if you just want a private gTLD.
> It cost Blockstack PBC 40 BTC to create the .id namespace in 2015 (in transaction
I can see the argument for invalidation, even if unlikely. The much more realistic scenario is where you get a cert for 2 years for any ordinary domain, even if your domain expires next month.
How would you resolve a single string?
Companies are quick to register domains, I had to manage about 1200 or so at my last job, and migrate them to Route53.
Perhaps a manager thought it was a good idea, and IT said No!
And there's still be some random millionaire to register piggy.bank.
I wondered if they'd refuse it, for being close to "nic.rw" but they don't seem to use it.
If you get it, yoj have to worry about the gTLD dying, and still get the .com
So you stay in .com with a sucky name