5 ms·

Offtopic, but has anybody used name.com for domain registration? I recently found out that namecheap bans the word "hacker" (you have to contact them to get a

by blhack 14y ago

Offtopic, but has anybody used name.com for domain registration? I recently found out that namecheap bans the word "hacker" (you have to contact them to get a domain manually approved if it contains that word). That rubs me the wrong way, and I'd rather not give my money to a company that thinks "hackers" are all criminals.

zerosanity 14y ago
I use Name.com for registrations. I've only had good experiences with them. Nothing bad to report.
agwa 14y ago
I use them and I think they are very good (though I don't know for sure that they don't have some kind of word blacklist too). Linode uses name.com as their registrar which I think is a pretty good endorsement. Edit: I got as far as checkout with a domain containing "hacker" so it looks OK on that front.
vowelless 14y ago
I use name.com for about 10 domains. Never had a complaint with them.
benbjohnson 14y ago
I have several domains with them and have never had a problem. I had to contact their customer support about a .IO domain and they were really helpful.
keidian 14y ago
I use them and have had no issues
cschneid 14y ago
Name.com has been my default registrar for a while, and is pretty decent. Recently while renewing a domain, the anonymous registration stuff didn't apply right (paid for 2 years, got 13 months instead. no biggie). Their support fixed it over email in a few minutes, and I was on my way. I'd recommend.
nilved 14y ago
name.com is pretty stellar, actually. I would still be using them rather than NameCheap if they had the dynamic DNS features NameCheap does.
jsnell 14y ago
I use name.com, and will never register another domain with them, nor recommend them to anyone. It's barely acceptable for a mostly unused vanity domain, but if I were using the domain in any serious way I'd transfer it away in a heartbeat. The problem: If you use their name servers, they install a wildcard record for the domain pointing at a crummy adspam page. You can override the wildcard record with your own, but not disable it completely, which is completely unacceptable. Their explicitly stated reason for fucking over their customers is "we make more money this way". Which would be fine, but there's actually no way they'd be making even pennies on my domain, and they are actively reducing its utility by a much larger amount.
- agwa 14y ago
  Oh please. While I agree that's undesirable, it's a problem with their DNS hosting service (which is free) and not their registrar service (which you pay for). By all means warn people away from their free DNS hosting, but it's not fair to trash the whole company.
  - jsnell 14y ago
    That's a very strange view. It's clearly not a free service, but part of what you pay for. In fact is a large part of what you pay for -- very few organizations are going to be hosting their own name servers these days. But more importantly, I don't see how this can possibly be an unfair criticism. They are providing a uniquely crappy service, and have shown what I consider to be a flagrant disregard for their customers by degrading their service for no benefit at all to name.com. It's stupid, it's evil, and it's bad business. Why in the world would I trust or recommend them? (Just to be clear: I'm not complaining that there's a wildcard DNS record by default. Parking domains by default seems to be how everyone in the business works. I'm complaining about the fact that the wildcard DNS record stays in effect even after you configure the comain, and can only be disabled by defining your own bogus wildcard record instead. Basically it turns every user of their service into an unintentional typosquatter.)
marshray 14y ago
I wonder if they ban 'haxx0r' substrings too.

by blhack 14y ago

zerosanity 14y ago

I use Name.com for registrations. I've only had good experiences with them. Nothing bad to report.

agwa 14y ago

I use them and I think they are very good (though I don't know for sure that they don't have some kind of word blacklist too). Linode uses name.com as their registrar which I think is a pretty good endorsement. Edit: I got as far as checkout with a domain containing "hacker" so it looks OK on that front.

vowelless 14y ago

I use name.com for about 10 domains. Never had a complaint with them.

benbjohnson 14y ago

I have several domains with them and have never had a problem. I had to contact their customer support about a .IO domain and they were really helpful.

keidian 14y ago

I use them and have had no issues

cschneid 14y ago

Name.com has been my default registrar for a while, and is pretty decent. Recently while renewing a domain, the anonymous registration stuff didn't apply right (paid for 2 years, got 13 months instead. no biggie). Their support fixed it over email in a few minutes, and I was on my way. I'd recommend.

nilved 14y ago

name.com is pretty stellar, actually. I would still be using them rather than NameCheap if they had the dynamic DNS features NameCheap does.

jsnell 14y ago

I use name.com, and will never register another domain with them, nor recommend them to anyone. It's barely acceptable for a mostly unused vanity domain, but if I were using the domain in any serious way I'd transfer it away in a heartbeat. The problem: If you use their name servers, they install a wildcard record for the domain pointing at a crummy adspam page. You can override the wildcard record with your own, but not disable it completely, which is completely unacceptable. Their explicitly stated reason for fucking over their customers is "we make more money this way". Which would be fine, but there's actually no way they'd be making even pennies on my domain, and they are actively reducing its utility by a much larger amount.

agwa 14y ago
Oh please. While I agree that's undesirable, it's a problem with their DNS hosting service (which is free) and not their registrar service (which you pay for). By all means warn people away from their free DNS hosting, but it's not fair to trash the whole company.
- jsnell 14y ago
  That's a very strange view. It's clearly not a free service, but part of what you pay for. In fact is a large part of what you pay for -- very few organizations are going to be hosting their own name servers these days. But more importantly, I don't see how this can possibly be an unfair criticism. They are providing a uniquely crappy service, and have shown what I consider to be a flagrant disregard for their customers by degrading their service for no benefit at all to name.com. It's stupid, it's evil, and it's bad business. Why in the world would I trust or recommend them? (Just to be clear: I'm not complaining that there's a wildcard DNS record by default. Parking domains by default seems to be how everyone in the business works. I'm complaining about the fact that the wildcard DNS record stays in effect even after you configure the comain, and can only be disabled by defining your own bogus wildcard record instead. Basically it turns every user of their service into an unintentional typosquatter.)

marshray 14y ago

I wonder if they ban 'haxx0r' substrings too.