| ▲ | Avamander 5 hours ago |
| At the same time given the already terrible reputation of such vanity TLDs, being this hard on abuse might be the only survivable way. That's not me saying there shouldn't be a warning and a recourse, but the time-to-profit for domain abuse is really short so anti-abuse actions have to be quick. |
|
| ▲ | NewJazz 3 hours ago | parent [-] |
| This isn't being hard on abuse though, this is being lazy and incompetent. |
| |
| ▲ | Avamander 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm fairly sure that Safe Browsing's false-positive rate is extremely low otherwise it'd be unusable in Chrome. Which also means that acting on positive results is very likely a correct approach. | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Safe browsing is meant for websites, not domain names. You really want your registry acting on it and nuking your email services, intranet services, cert renewal automation, et cetera? |
|
|
