Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cthulhu_ | Hacker News Reader

.jpg would make sense, if it's limited to domains only ever hosting a single image file, like goatse.jpg

Domain names that are limited in their functionality by the TLD are really interesting to me. I know all of .dev is on the HSTS list, for example. I'm currently working on a subdomain registration service that only permits A/AAAA records in the private IP address ranges [1], but still supports certificate issuance over ACME DNS-01 via TXT rrecords.

For jpeg, that would be a terms of service agreement? Or would the TLD manage all hosting?

[1] https://www.getlocalcert.net/

I think at least my consumer router would block such DNS on grounds of DNS rebind protection.

You also wouldn't be able to access it on grounds of the private IP address is not in the same private as your LAN.

Can you share which model? I think the better approach is to resolve the domain locally, using unbound or similar. That's extra setup that some people won't do, so I want to support multiple options.

Official OpenWRT builds do this by default (though you can turn that off in DNS settings), but many newer consumer routers that use OS based on OpenWRT might not have the option.

That would be an hilarious restriction. And I’m sure it would also push clever devs to stretch the definition of what a single image file is. I now kinda want that to happen.

I hate read comments here, because they are always AIDS. People arguing about whether non technical people know what a zip file is for example. But this comment was a shiny diamond in a pile of turd, thank you.

Why stop at .jpg?

Imagine every file extension was a domain. Imagine all the public files of the world existing on the internet at their very own URL. It’s like the internet was just one massive directory of files.

Now wouldn’t that be amazing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com