Nördnytt! 🤓_for-sale DNS records
- comrade1234 - 51379 sekunder sedanSomething I've wondered... if you publicly say that a domain is for sale and someone has a trademark for it would you automatically lose in arbitration?
Around 1998 I registered a domain. Sony registered a trademark with the same name a few years after that. Someone on a Gmail account asked if he could buy it - I later found out he worked for Sony. I told him no - it's for a game I've been working on. I went on a vacation for a month and when I got back there was a fedex package filled with documents from Sony saying I'm violating their trademark and they'll take the domain.
I got a lawyer and he told me that I shouldn't offer it for sale as that would show the arbitration board that I don't need the domain. But he also told me that in order to fight the trademark it would probably cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars. So I could keep the domain but not use it for commerce...
In the end I ended up selling it to Sony but through my lawyer - I never stated it was for sale. But this was early on for domains and I wonder what the process is like now.
- Tiberium - 52196 sekunder sedan
- asdfman123 - 39287 sekunder sedanThey need Georgism for DNS names. You set your own price for your domain. But you have to pay 2-5% of that price annually to keep it.
That way, squatters are incentived to sell it to someone who's going to use it.
- adityaathalye - 748 sekunder sedan
_for-sale baby-shoes never-used - kmoser - 47959 sekunder sedan> Remove it when the domain is no longer for sale. The convention has no “not for sale” value; absence is the only way to say no.
Since most domains that are for sale don't currently have such a record, it would be wrong to assume they are not for sale. Therefore, absence of such a record does not explicitly mean "not for sale." It's no different from a house: a "for sale" sign in the front yard means it's for sale, but lack of a sign doesn't mean it's not for sale; it could mean the owner doesn't wish to advertise that way, or at all.
- layer8 - 50475 sekunder sedanIt’s interesting that domains apparently are still such a big business, despite how browsers have been deemphasizing URLs and domain names, and given the prevalence of apps.
- Anoian - 49552 sekunder sedanYeah cause we really had to improve domain squatters lives.
In my opinion domain squatting should be banned instead.
- derefr - 8088 sekunder sedan> If you are willing to sell, the interested buyer has no way to learn that short of a cold email to a WHOIS contact that privacy redaction has probably removed.
Has everybody forgotten about well-known email alias addresses? Inquiries about the hostname itself would be (among other things) exactly what `hostmaster@domain` was intended as a point-of-contact for. No need for a working WHOIS service, let alone a non-privacy-redacted WHOIS record.
- Habgdnv - 42247 sekunder sedanI noticed few commenters mention something like a rule: If you say your domain is for sale, they will take it from you because..... And was wondering, few years back, twitter was sold to mr Elon. I will just say it like this: Did they lose all their trademarks and rights to all domains, if someone register twitter.cc or twitter.it or similar, because twitter is for sale and they did not need the trademark for business anymore?
- temp0826 - 46833 sekunder sedanThis would have been great for a 2-letter .st domain I had been wanting for years (which appeared to be parked and just redirecting towards ticketmaster or something, with no contact info available). I was bummed about it for a long time, as the .st nic had a sale on 2-letter domains which made me want to pull the trigger, but it got scooped up a day or two prior apparently. I lucked out this year and saw they let it lapse! (I did have a yearly calendar reminder telling me to run whois :)
- perino - 48767 sekunder sedanThis was first done by SIDN I believe, the company that orchestrates the .nl domains. They however, do not implement most of the spec.
When searching their online whois[1], they'll tell you if a domain is for sale and link to the for sale page. They don't use any of the info you put in the DNS though. The URL comes from their internal system. You need to register it separately. They also don't use the price, txt or anything else you put in the DNS.
All they use is the "fcod", to look up the url in their own system. They had a different syntax for this before, but this functionality has existed for some years.
- sandeepkd - 33746 sekunder sedanI am bit puzzled, read through the RFC itself (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc10023/) but could not find who is going to use it and why?
- Tiberium - 51866 sekunder sedan(Not quoting the article directly due to HN's auto AI filters)
In "Common mistakes" this article first says not to add this record if you're not actually planning to sell the domain, then says that the record doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, that feels quite weird to me.
- 1970-01-01 - 41146 sekunder sedanCan't wait for some kid to slip this into Google.com via AI chatbot and then massage the chatbot to complete the sale for $1.
- Bender - 48781 sekunder sedanFrom the RFC The "_for-sale" leaf node name can be placed at any level of the DNS, except in the .arpa infrastructure TLD.
There used to be a number of sites that would let users create {username}.some.subdomain.apex.tld. Perhaps this is not a thing any more I honestly don't know. If it is still a thing and someone registers the username "_for-sale" they could cause some confusion.
Why allow any level of DNS? If you are selling a domain that should include the entire domain and thus the _for-sale should only be valid at the apex unless the goal is to cause legal problems for some big providers.
- mentos - 51265 sekunder sedan“This domain is somewhat worn.” -UO joke
- thelastgallon - 50433 sekunder sedanThis is probably the only item that can sold without saying, "Used, Like New"
- xhkkffbf - 46673 sekunder sedanBut what about the costs? There are several domains I want. They're just sitting there and no one is doing anything with them. But when I ask to buy them, they ask for outrageous prices (at least in my opinion.) If someone else bought the domain, I would think, "I'm just being outbid." But they never change hands. I've tried telling the owners that I'm their only hope. They just sit there because they have some insane idea for how much it is worth.
- riddlemethat - 52039 sekunder sedanWonderful. Another tool for domain campers. Just what standards bodies should be spending time on…
- - 50821 sekunder sedan
- gronodev - 48225 sekunder sedanSigh, I'm not a fan of domains becoming the new kind of real estate.
Wonder how hard will it be in 20 years to get a good, unused name in a reasonable price.
- flenserboy - 38552 sekunder sedanthis is how we get under-the-radar marketplaces for llms
- Hilliard_Ohiooo - 36743 sekunder sedanMaking things easier, and more profitable, for domain squatters is exactly the wrong direction to be going in! I hate how the internet has turned to squeezing every last penny out of its users. This is pathetic and raw.
- shevy-java - 48287 sekunder sedanIs that good or bad? That's a genuine question here.
- starkeeper - 48842 sekunder sedanHow long until these links are swimming with malware?
- - 49879 sekunder sedan
- thrawa8387336 - 42073 sekunder sedanNobody asked for this
- TZubiri - 51463 sekunder sedanmy slop detection instinct is so good that I can tell it's slop before even clicking the link. I precogged the neon colors of the website, the pill modals, the 'it's not X, it's Y', the emdashes...
- imthenitto - 47709 sekunder sedan[flagged]
- eethrowaway - 42699 sekunder sedan[dead]
- nullsanity - 38368 sekunder sedan[dead]
- gguncth - 46168 sekunder sedanThey should keep this up for a year and then seize all of these squatted domains and auction them off.
- anigbrowl - 45308 sekunder sedanBetween this and domain-owner secrecy the whole domain name system has become financialized over the last 30 years. We are not in any way better off.