Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Domain Tasting "Officially Dead" Thanks To Cancellation Policy

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the plenty-of-other-shady-practices-left dept.

The Internet 102

Ars Technica is reporting that domain tasting has been all but eradicated now that the full penalty for excessive cancellations has taken effect. "In 2008, ICANN decided to act. It allowed domain registrars to withdraw as many as 10 percent of their total registrations; they would face penalties for anything above that. Initially, ICANN adopted a budget that included a charge of $0.20 for each withdrawal above the limit, which was in effect from June 2008 to July of this year. Later, it adopted an official policy that raised the penalty to $6.75, the cost of a .org registration; that took effect in July 2009. The results have been dramatic. Even under the low-cost budget provisions, domain withdrawals during the grace period dropped to 16 percent of what they had been prior to its adoption. Once the heavy penalties took hold, the withdrawal rate dropped to under half a percent."

cancel ×

102 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068619)

So the semi-legitimate use you can dig up is that companies want to buy up bundles of DNs and drop ads there to see if type-in traffic or google searches can make them enough bank to warrant keeping it up. Personally, sounds like a get rich quick scheme providing nothing -- maybe even negative confusion -- to society and should therefore be discouraged.

Next you got domain kiting. Where a jerk "tastes" under one registrar and then cancels five days later and "tastes" under another an then cancels five days later and then "tastes" under yet another registrar ... do we see where this is going? Again, free DN registration, stupid that this should even have a term even stupider that it works for people with a lot of patience aiming to save $12/year.

And what's left? Domain Name Front Running like our friend Network Solutions [slashdot.org] ? Remind me again what sound logic caused domain name tasting [slashdot.org] to be introduced in the first place?

Lastly, after reading the short report, I'm lead to believe that we're still allowing 10% AGP deletes. My question is simple: Given the above reasons for domain tasting, why allow it at all? I mean everyone's spinning this move in a positive light except for scam artists and con men. So why not just seal the deal and make it "Officially Officially Dead" in a policy?

So you're saying it's mostly dead? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29068719)

There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. I say we take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Re:So you're saying it's mostly dead? (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069421)

If it's all dead, the only thing left to do is sort through it's pockets for loose change.

Re:So you're saying it's mostly dead? (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073789)

It's "dust off and nuke the site from orbit".

Re:So you're saying it's mostly dead? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 5 years ago | (#29075209)

take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

The whole point of nuking the site from orbit is that you reduce to zero (not "very low" but "zero") the possibility of your organism getting off the planet. The nuking from orbit needs to be done by a vessel that hasn't landed (or even entered the atmosphere and the nuking needs to vaporise all surface-to-orbit capable ships on the ground as well as all organisms capable of learning how to build one. It's the only way to be "sure", rather than "have a reasonable degree of confidence".

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29068947)

Lastly, after reading the short report, I'm lead to believe that we're still allowing 10% AGP deletes. My question is simple: Given the above reasons for domain tasting, why allow it at all?

For the same reasons for the policy in the first place: "Whups! Screwed that one up..." and people backing out of registrations. ICANN just made abusing the policy a lot less profitable, s'all.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29070355)

ICANN should disallow registrars from owning any domain unrelated to their business. Registrars owning domains is like insider trading.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (4, Insightful)

Ex-Linux-Fanboy (1311235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068989)

I think the thinking is that it allows people to get refunds if they made a typo during the domain registration process.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069249)

That's easy - you can have a refund on any domain as long as you request it within n days and you don't set up valid DNS records for that domain during that period. If you set up working DNS entries then you're using the domain so you should be charged for it.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (2, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069627)

"Setting up DNS records" is (in some ways) vague and is relatively hard to enforce.

What they have now apparently accomplishes its goal. Best I can tell there's no problem left to be solved.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072369)

"Setting up DNS records" is (in some ways) vague and is relatively hard to enforce.

Not at all. Every day during the grace period, ICANN (or whoever) does an automated DNS query on the new domain until either the grace period ends or it gets a response showing that the domain exists. In the latter case, a note is made on the domain's record that DNS records have been set up. If you back out during the grace period, you get a refund if and only if that note doesn't exist.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072791)

Yeah, but for every registrar I've ever used the DNS records are set up the second you purchase the domain.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073139)

If you're using a combination registrar and hosting service, of course they will. If, however, you're expected to set up your own hosting and so on, they probably don't. Good point, though, in any case.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#29074103)

If you're using a combination registrar and hosting service, of course they will. If, however, you're expected to set up your own hosting and so on, they probably don't. Good point, though, in any case.

Generally the registrar will set up DNS hosting on their servers by default, with "www" pointing to one of their web servers showing an ad-laden "parking" page, regardless of what you intend to change it to in 15 minutes.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29075269)

Sounds like a good reason not to use this registrar then. The one I use doesn't configure any DNS entries until you've gone to the DNS control panel and added some (they only support MX, A, TXT and CN entries, but they let you change the SOA record to point to your own DNS server if you want to use it instead).

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073625)

Also, my hosting provider does it automagically -- I register a domain and 5 minutes later it's ready to go. So while the principle sounds good, it's not entirely feasible, unless absolutely no one uses a host that is also a registrar that does this instantly-working-domain thing with no customer intervention whatever. (BTW this is one reason I love my provider -- saves me a lot of nuisance.)

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072389)

Why don't we instead say, you can HAVE IT, provided you pay for a different registration in its place.

You can register 10 domains and cancel them all, and get refunds, as long as you register and pay for 10 domains, and keep all 10 for 30 days.

Your refund gets performed at the end of the 30 day period, after you bought all 10 replacements.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073369)

That's what the spammers do, keep a website up for 10 days to collect the idiots, then move on to the next domain.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072949)

But what if you buy a domain from a registrar? A lot of them just set it up for you. So if I buy a domain from Company X (and they set up DNS very quickly as usual - normally within 24 hours as I've seen), and I change my mind... I don't think a refund is coming my way anytime soon.

Not a Valid Use, Submit a Change Request (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069309)

I think the thinking is that it allows people to get refunds if they made a typo during the domain registration process.

So what you're telling me is that the process for making an error in your form is to delete everything and start over? You're telling me that they do this instead of having you submit a request to have it changed? Am I the only one that thinks it would be easier to make a form for requesting changes to your account?

People are human, people err. But it benefits everyone involved if you just fix the mistake when you notice it. The registrar retains your business and you get the domain you wanted. No big deal. But it stops scammers from allocating 300 domains and keeping 3 of them to squat on or whatever they want to do. They should be stuck with 300 domains they have to pay for.

Re:Not a Valid Use, Submit a Change Request (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070257)

A change request. Ingenious. Feh.

How about charging for the mistake? After all, it was my mistake, not the registrar's...

Re:Not a Valid Use, Submit a Change Request (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073961)

Just require them to extend the domain by one year in order to change the domain to a different name after the first 72 hours. It solves the tasting abuse problem equally well, but does so without causing an equally obnoxious "I'm throwing money away for something that should be an automated process and thus should cost nothing" problem.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070851)

If a person makes a typo during the domain registration process, then let them fix it ... DURING the domain registration process. The person enters the domain name they want on the first page of the form, and has to confirm on each of the next two or three pages that yes, this is the domain name they want, spelled the way they want. Making a typo once on a form is understandable. Making that same typo five times? Not so much.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073987)

Show me a registrar where you have to type it in more than once. After the first page, you're just reading the name, not typing it again.

Besides, people who made mistakes the first time will likely not notice those mistakes on a reread, either. This is particularly true for people who are dyslexic.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Jave1in (1071792) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072025)

If the domain name you choose is so easy to typo that you registered it incorrectly, wouldn't it make sense to redirect the mistyped domain to the real one? I'd think your potential user base might make the same mistake.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

antic (29198) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073571)

Domain names are an incredibly cheap part of setting up a business. Typo should be tough luck, or you have 30 minutes to catch it and adjust.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069045)

Because there may be actual reasons for people to want to immediately cancel a domain? (Heck, enough people make typos in forms...)

There is probably enough legitimate demand for this service to support something like 5% or so, maybe even the current 10%. Sure, we want to strongly discourage it, but actually disallowing it would be going further than we need to.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069183)

If it's only for mistyped domain names, they could offer a free "rename domain" during that period (i.e. you give up your mis-typed domain name in exchange for the correctly typed one). That way you always have to pay for a domain you ordered, but still can correct any typos you made without additional cost.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

mal3 (59208) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069685)

And what if the domain name you wanted wasn't actually available?

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29070757)

Then tough luck, suck up the approx. $7 you're out for that entire year. Why should the registrar have to pay for the extra processing of cancellation/refund/etc because of your mistake? That there's a $7 lesson in checking the most important part of the form before submitting it.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (2, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070999)

Then you accept you've made a mistake, pay your $5-15, and move on. Stop buying lattes at StarDucks for a week and pocket the difference.

The instant a "money back" UNDO button goes into place, someone will just go back to tasting again. A well-intentioned system to allow people to avoid the consequences of their mistakes has allowed significant abuses of the system for the rest of us.

And by "rest of us", I will freely admit that I have acquired a couple of incorrect domain names in the past. Recently I got one for an informal camping/hiking/kayaking group I'm in, and one of the members said she didn't like the domain name I chose a couple of days later. So I just got a new domain name. My registrar charges $6 for the first year and $8 a year afterward, so it literally wasn't worth the time and effort of getting my money back for the mistake. I'll just let the domain lapse next year if I haven't found a use for it.

I think a lot of the need for an undo comes about simply because it exists. If people knew that a domain order was irrevocable, they'd probably spend an extra 5 seconds closely examining their domain name before hitting YES.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

sfbiker (1118091) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070415)

And what keeps you from tasting, changing the spelling, then retasting? I want "Yhoo.com". No wait, no hits to that one, I meant to type "Yaho.com". Sorry, another typo, I really want "Yhaoo.com". "ayhoo.com"? "yaaho.com"?

If you're going to set an arbitrary limit on how many times you can change the spelling before you get charged, why not just set a different arbitrary limit that tells the registrar how many deletes he can have before he gets penalized. Then he is free to set any rename/delete policy he wants, knowing that if he exceeds 10% then he'll get charged.

Probably much less real demand but politics (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29074235)

I'd guess the percentage of legitimate demand is far less than 10% of domain registrations, probably far less than 1% (seeing as how the current legitimate+illegitimate percentage is 0.3%) But it doesn't matter much - 10% was low enough to kill off the vast majority of the remaining domain tasters, while high enough that people weren't going to argue and whine about how unreasonably strict it was. It means that the registrars who were friendly to the domain-tasting business can't afford to push that stuff any more, and it's not clear that setting a tighter limit is the most effective way to kill of the remaining abusers. After all, there are still people who speculate on name space just for the advertising revenue even if they have to pay the full $6/year. So a lot of this namespace pollution is going away.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#29074807)

Because there may be actual reasons for people to want to immediately cancel a domain? (Heck, enough people make typos in forms...)

Well then, perhaps the lack of such ability would provide these people with some incentive to learn to spell correctly, or at least proofread what they've typed. That's hardly a bad thing, based on the barely legible garbage they post on Slashdot.

Besides, we aren't talking about anyone's life savings here.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069047)

'cause the spammers provide cashflow to said registrars... without'em, there wouldn't be much to do... (just think if every domain owned was legitimate---it doesn't take as much resources to manage that from the registrar's side).

ie: kinda like networking corps (cisco?) benefits from lots and lots of spam---in fact, if spam increases tenfold in the next few years, cisco will be more than happy to sell you 10x the equipment.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069077)

Solutions beyond ICANN don't seem easy. Say Google, Yahoo, & other advertisers would decide to also fight against this. I know that Google, and suspect that Yahoo also, punish pages with bare minimum, or copied content, and lots of CLICK NOW SMALL PENIS GUY! They could of course pagerank=0 OTHER, real websites that had the same ad providers these scammers use. But obviously that is not a solution they would touch; because of anti-trust issues. But perhaps they could lobby for legislation allowing such pageranking; in any case; that's far fetched.

Or if mozilla & other browsers could let users point out that "this is an ad-only webpage" and let users land elsewhere whenever the same typos occur. Than the effing /b/tards might destroy entire sites.

In any case, it should be criminal to create a webpage stealing feeds from others and loading it with ads; or a webpage that is just a fake search portal or a fake directory. It seems just crazy that people may end up paying huge sums from pirated music, while these jerks set up entire websites to profit from small penis guy & from grandma; the only people I *want* to believe would actually click on those ads.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069701)

You -want- to believe grandma is legitimately clicking on those ads? You -want- to lump her in with small penis guy?

Disturbing.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (5, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069851)

Say Google [...] pagerank=0 OTHER, real websites that had the same ad providers these scammers use.

You seem to be assuming Google "do no evil"; I'm afraid you're a few years out of date:

http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070113)

You seem to be assuming Google "do no evil"; I'm afraid you're a few years out of date: http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]

HOLY SHIT BATMAN!

So Google is one of the culprits in this? I need some valium.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070341)

"it should be criminal to create a webpage stealing feeds from others "

What?

We can't even seem to criminalize ads that say "A Phoenix mom discovers the one rule to lose weight" when there was NEVER a Phoenix mom, NEVER a mom who discovered a rule to lose weight, and NEVER a mom who lost weight involved IN ANY WAY with the ad campaign. Pure, made-up BS. Apparently not criminal.

Surely republishing feed links can't be criminal - you're not even replicating the content, just advertising for them. You're benefiting them.

A strange world...

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29071253)

Except for the whole problem that many people creating the pages that you think should be illegal tend to be in some country other than yours. That makes prosecuting a tad difficult. I mean, the US bullied it's way into killing TPB, but I somehow doubt they'll put the same effort forth for a search page.

Re:The Many (Miss) Uses of Domain Tasting (1)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069639)

why allow it at all?

I think by limiting how many a registrar can change, this encorages registrars to use it for legitimate purposes, such as mis-typed names (if those really happen). Rather than cater to non-customers, they may only make the revocation available to paying customers who aren't really tasting.

I'd suggest a lower threshold like 1%, but it maybe this helps weed out illegitimate (scammer-friendly) registrars because they don't have enough real registrations to make their 10% account for much. I suspect that's why the figures didn't just drop to exactly 10%.

What was the point anyway?? (3, Interesting)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068691)

What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068787)

What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

Obviously, some domains have gone bad, like milk left out too long. You don't want to drink the whole thing, so, um, you taste a little bit of it? To see if it's gone sour? Maybe we could replace it with domain smelling, or domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (4, Funny)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068873)

domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

Last time I tried that in the bedroom she threatened to kill me.

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (3, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069683)

domain giving it to your wife to see if she spits it out?

Last time I tried that in the bedroom she threatened to kill me.

I say that we, the males of the species, start a class action suit against the fairer sex for false advertising. Or bait and switch, I'm not sure. All I know is, after we marry them, there's this whole list of stuff they won't do anymore, and if we try to get it in writing beforehand, we get slapped.

"So, if we were to get married, how many blowjobs per week, on average, could I expect to receive?"

"Depends. How flexible are you?"

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069905)

I've had no problems with your wife, she swallows my load like a champ, and licks up every drop on my balls. Dunno what your problem is.

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072471)

"Depends. How flexible are you?"

"Depends. Are you asking about before, during or after the blow job?"

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069787)

That's what she said!

        -dZ.

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (2, Insightful)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069807)

you must have been trying to use the wrong port.

Re:It's 'tasting,' not 'testing' (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069385)

"Just remember, if the milk turns out to be sour, I ain't the kinda pussy to drink it. Know what I mean?"

Re:What was the point anyway?? (5, Informative)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068833)

What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

Money, young grasshopper. Money. From TFA:

Never ones to let a good deed go unpunished, scammers quickly learned to take advantage of a user-friendly policy that allowed a misregistered domain name--perhaps due to a typo--to be withdrawn at no cost. Scammers used this "Add Grace Period" to grab huge numbers of domains, throw up pages full of advertising, then withdraw the applications before the bill came due. It was a practice known as "domain tasting," and it gave the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) a bad case of indigestion.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (3, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069647)

Helps with typo-squatting, etc. Keep the domains with high returns and ditch the others. Don't even have to pay for the ones that don't pan out.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (3, Informative)

drougie (36782) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068849)

Registering a bunch of domains to see if any are already getting enough traffic to generate enough revenue to make hanging onto the domain worth it or canceling it before the bill comes. Aggressive typo-cybersquatting, a lot of it. Here. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What was the point anyway?? (3, Interesting)

theskipper (461997) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069265)

To be clear, a large portion of tasting involved picking up bulk names from the pending delete list. Money was made from domains that might have residual traffic after the delete. Park the domain for a few days then see if the adsense/affiliate revenue outweighed the annual fee. If not, drop it and get the refund.

So typos would be a subset; not every tasted domain would be a typo.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071597)

Not to mention squatting. A lot of scumbags go to the delete list, snag them as quickly as possible, return it as a typo just before the allowed period is over, and then turn around and snag it again. They effectively were fraudulently squatting domain names without ever paying for them. Then when you needed your domain, back, they'd charge you a huge fee understanding its cheaper to pay their illegal extortion then it is to hire a lawyer who likely wouldn't understand the situation in the first place.

A large portion of what they've done is reduce the amount of extortion which has been taking place. They've effectively reduced the cost effectiveness of their squatting-extortion model as it now costs them large sums of money to extort from others via the bulk model. As a result, the practice is rapidly on the decline, as one would expect.

Bravo!

Re:What was the point anyway?? (3, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068915)

What was the purpose of "domain testing" anyway??

The cited reason, though dubious, was to for example, register your business under a dozen variations of domain names, wait a few weeks or a month, let things hit the search engines etc, and see which one or two get you the most traffic, register those few, and cancel the rest.

The reality of course, due to low and nonexistent abuse provisions, was that the domain squatters moved in en masse and tasted a few hundred thousand domains a month each, on a rotating basis, causing every reasonable unregistered domain name to be perpetually under taste by a squatter, that would be more than happy to sell you the domain for a few hundred or few thousand dollars.

I see this as a good thing for several reasons. Firstly, domain squatters need to die anyway and another nail in their coffin is fine by me. Secondly, I am tired of mistyping a url or poking around with probables looking for something, only to land on "what I need, when I need it." That about makes me want to vomit at this point. Before this enforcement, practically ANY domain name you could enter in was either taken and had content possibly in your interest, (10%) or was under taste. (90%) Now we can start seeing our browser's domain-not-found page once in awhile again.

But then again now we will experience the return of those "helpful DNS redirections" from microsoft and your local ISP.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069033)

I find it hard to believe that any legitimate business couldn't afford to register even a hundred variations on domain names, and pay the full year in an attempt to test whether they get hits.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (1)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069233)

Tasting, not testing.

Say you got to Registrar A and ask them if example.com is available, and how much it is. Finding it available and being dissatisfied with the price, you go to Registrar B and ask the same, only to be told that the domain is owned by, guess who? Registrar A, who bought the domain because they knew you were interested. Now, you must buy from them or forgo the name. Registrar A would hold onto ownership until the last possible moment they could get a refund.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069449)

OK, then ask for a similar domain name at registrar A. If you like the price, correct yourself before registering ("sorry, I didn't mean exemple.com, I meant example.com") If you don't like the price, repeat with registrar B.

Re:What was the point anyway?? (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069917)

Allowing refunds if you screw up and buy the wrong domain. Once again proving that on the internet no good deed goes unpunished.

Oh how true ... (4, Insightful)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068713)

One of the unfortunate aspects of networked computing is that the cost of antisocial behaviors is so small

Re:Oh how true ... (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068791)

If only all those people working on a way to deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP could get their act together...

Re:Oh how true ... (5, Funny)

NotWithABang (1570431) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069053)

I've been working on this protocol for a long time and, just to update you, we have it working via UDP but discovered it to be essentialy useless since, as we all know, UDP is connectionless and a punch to the face is a complete waste when no connection is made.

The difficulties in implementing the protocol over TCP seem to be in the fact that the receiver of the "Punch-To-The-Face" packets (PTTFs) must first ACKnowledge the connection attempt before it will be received and, in most cases, they simply refuse the connection.

We're currently researching spoofing methods that may disguise the PTTFs until after the connection is made. However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.

Re:Oh how true ... (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069915)

But, if it ever does work, one could use botnets to launch DAKE (Distributed Ass Kicking Extraordinare) attacks on people. Mmm.

Re:Oh how true ... (2)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070609)

However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.

It's not like anyone here would know how to ACK those connection attempts anyway.

Re:Oh how true ... (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071193)

We're currently researching spoofing methods that may disguise the PTTFs until after the connection is made. However, current attempts to make a Punch To The Face look like a Hug From A Friend or Sex With A Girl have been unsuccessful.

I think I've found your problem, outlined in bold above. Perhaps try "Click Here To Start Star Trek Trivia Contest" might work better?

Re:Oh how true ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29073265)

Some of the best "Sex With A Girl" I have ever had left me feeling like I had taken a punch to the face the next day. Oh, it hurt so good!

Re:Oh how true ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29070187)

I thought that was what UPnP was for?

Re:Oh how true ... (4, Funny)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069119)

One of the unfortunate aspects of networked computing is that the cost of antisocial behaviors is so small

I disagree, you JACKASS!

Sudden? Not quite. (5, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068733)

We need a new tag: "eventualoutbreakofcommonsense"

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (3, Funny)

jeffshoaf (611794) | more than 5 years ago | (#29068879)

We need a new tag: "eventualoutbreakofcommonsense"

Unfortunately, those happen far too seldomly to warrant a tag.

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069043)

True, but eventually we will have more of them happening, hence the need for the tag NOW!

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069145)

True, but eventually we will have more of them happening, hence the need for the tag NOW!

tag: suddenneedforeventualoutbreakofcommonsense

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (1)

srealm (157581) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069193)

You forget, Apathy/Procrastination is a virtue. Just look at some common idioms such as "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" and "Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow". Or my personal favorite ... "Fuck it!"

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (2, Insightful)

MarbleMunkey (1495379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071133)

My personal favorite is a modification of one of your examples:

"Why put of until tomorrow what you can put off indefinitely"

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29070287)

And it's not common sense any way. They still allow some tasting, just a limited amount. Common sense would forbid refunds. Domains are not expensive enough to prevent people from paying full price to try them out.

New Tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29073057)

I was thinking "AboutFuckingTime"....

Re:Sudden? Not quite. (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29073297)

More like "partialoutbreakofcommonsense".

dns providers business model. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069031)

let's hope that dns providers (like opendns) don't start offering a similar tasting service for unregistered domains.

Doesn't matter anyway (2, Informative)

digid (259751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069191)

because your ISP is tasting all the domains you visit through their DNS. Can they not sell a list of the most popular misspelled domain names? I was alarmed the other day when I mistyped a nonexistant domain and comcast's domain helper came up.

http://www.comcastvoices.com/2009/07/domain-helper-service-here-to-help-you.html [comcastvoices.com]

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (1)

kamakazi (74641) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069257)

It seems to me you either mistyped an existing domain, or correctly typed a nonexistant domain, unless of course you actually meant to type a different nonexistant domain :-)

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (1)

digid (259751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069415)

I actually typed www.google.co There is no google domain in the .co TLD since the .co TLD doesn't exist. But comcast didn't mind returning me a page full of ads asking me if I mistyped www.google.com

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (1)

digid (259751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069437)

I facepalmed after I hit submit. Them poor columbians.

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (1)

digid (259751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069537)

*Colombians

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069563)

since the .co TLD doesn't exist

Colombia doesn't exist? What did I drink this morning if it wasn't coffee?

---
flag@whitehouse.gov

Re:Doesn't matter anyway (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069845)

What did I drink this morning if it wasn't coffee?

I'm not sure but Starbucks made a business out of selling it.

Next, get registrars out of domain speculation (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069281)

The next step is to enforce ICANN rule 4.2.5 [icann.org] to prohibit registrars from warehousing or speculating in domains.

Re:Next, get registrars out of domain speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069749)

How about stopping registrars from renewing domains on 3-10 year terms, 3 FULL MONTHS BEFORE EXPIRATION, and then refusing a refund.

Thanks NetworkSolutions, you cuntrags.

Heavy Penalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29069399)

You know you're in the ghetto when $6.75 is enough of a "heavy penalty" that it actually matters.

What did Ben say about Mos Eisley? I think he was talking about the internet.

Re:Heavy Penalties (3, Insightful)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069545)

Yeah, now multiply that by the 10,000 domains that some SPAMMER registers, then decides to cancel when they don't pan out...

Re:Heavy Penalties (4, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29069723)

It's not like scammers work with a single domain. $6.75 * 1,000 or 10,000 is certainly going to discourage some people from being a douchebag. These are people who make tiny amounts of money from a ton of places, $6.75 is enough to destroy each small revenue stream for them.

It's sort of like when you take a penny from the tray at 7-11, except it's a much larger tray, and they take several million times.

Who knows how to get their money back. (3, Interesting)

lalena (1221394) | more than 5 years ago | (#29070073)

Besides the domain tasters, does anyone actually know how to get their money back for a domain? I've used several registrars, and I've never seen a link or a mention in a FAQ that I could get my money back if I make a typo. I'm sure it's in there, but just buried under mountains of fine print. For $10, it's my guess that most people figure it was their mistake and pay again. Only the shady people know about the policy.

Re:Who knows how to get their money back. (3, Informative)

GravityStar (1209738) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071055)

No you can't. All sales are final.

The shady people were the registrar's /themselves/.

Re:Who knows how to get their money back. (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071283)

I think it was more that the shady people typically also held large numbers of domains (ie, those they found tasty) so had special accounts.

Re:Who knows how to get their money back. (1)

jakebw (1282240) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071445)

Also, I believe that tasting was supposed to allow the registrar to recover money in the event of a credit card charge-back or non-paying customer.

Re:Who knows how to get their money back. (1)

tit0.c (245434) | more than 5 years ago | (#29072535)

Moniker (my registrar of choice) allowed users to delete and get refunded (minus a very small fee) domains right from the control panel. I used this myself a couple of times in the past 4 years. One was a typo and another one was a client that had second thoughts about a domain I registered for his company.

Very handy.Moniker rocks.

Domain Kiting (1)

jakebw (1282240) | more than 5 years ago | (#29071501)

Wikipedia says:
"Domain tasting should not be confused with domain kiting, which is the process of deleting a domain name during the five-day grace period and immediately re-registering it for another five-day period. This process is repeated any number of times with the end result of having the domain registered without ever actually paying for it."

So I guess that's dead, too?

There are other abuses... (1)

rch_slashdot (902085) | more than 5 years ago | (#29074981)

I found a domain I wanted two and a half months ago, and promptly bought it. I then looked for an economical hosting agency and arranged to move the domain - no go! I have to wait 60 days before I can move it! I have waited the sixty days, and put in a transfer request. After a while, I get an email asking if I requested the transfer. If so, do nothing - your transfer will be initiated after a 72 hours (+++) wait. The transfer will take between 7 and 14 days! This in the 21st century, on the INTERNET. I still have not found out how to see if there is any progress, and meanwhile - on my money - my domain name is hosting adverts which I do not wish to be associated with me or mine. This seems unacceptably poor policy. - Roger -

Re:There are other abuses... (1)

stine2469 (1349335) | more than 5 years ago | (#29075387)

You should be able to change the DNS settings for the domain to have it point where you want.
A client of mine does that with NetSol. As long as they own the IP addresses they enter, everything works. I put in a wildcard DNS entry pointing to a 404 'are you lost' page for them to keep bad dns queries from landing on NetSol's ad page.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>