Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #27559 > unrolled thread

Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2019-07-06 10:36 +0200
    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2019-07-27 22:13 -0400
      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack POSHLYAK <POSHLYAK@localmail.com> - 2019-07-28 02:22 +0000
        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Keith Nuttle <Keith_Nuttle@sbcglobal.net> - 2019-07-27 22:50 -0400
        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Snowden" <Edmail@fromrussiawithlove.net> - 2019-07-28 08:49 -0500
          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-28 08:50 -0500
            Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-28 16:30 +0200
              Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-28 23:50 +0100
                Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-29 01:37 +0100
                  Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-29 03:01 +0100
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-29 11:33 +0100
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-29 11:58 +0100
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2019-07-29 08:12 -0300
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 13:27 +0200
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "anonymous" <anonymous@rip.ax.lt> - 2019-07-29 07:04 -0500
                            Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2019-07-29 13:34 +0000
                              Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 15:45 +0200
                                Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-29 09:31 -0500
                                  Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 20:54 +0200
                            Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2019-07-30 10:42 -0500
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2019-07-30 10:40 -0500
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-07-29 08:21 -0400
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 15:47 +0200
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-07-29 15:03 +0100
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 12:58 +0200
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-29 06:59 -0500
                Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2019-07-28 23:52 -0400
                  Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-29 12:11 +0100
                  Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-29 15:34 -0400
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-30 00:00 +0200
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-30 02:30 +0100
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-30 11:57 +0200
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-07-30 16:18 +0000
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2019-07-30 13:12 +0000
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-30 15:02 -0400
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-31 12:52 +0200
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-31 14:59 -0400
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-07-30 00:35 +0000
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2019-07-30 02:26 +0100
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2019-07-30 15:08 -0400
                Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-29 06:57 -0500
                  Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-07-29 07:58 -0400
                    Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <anon@anon.com> - 2019-07-29 07:08 -0500
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-07-29 08:13 -0400
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2019-07-29 15:48 +0200
                      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-07-29 08:32 -0700
                        Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack "Anonymous" <nobody@mixmin.net> - 2019-07-29 11:12 -0500
                          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2019-07-29 09:50 -0700
          Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Chuck Rhode <CRhode@LacusVeris.com> - 2019-07-28 11:18 -0500
      Re: Florida city reportedly fires IT director after being forced to pay $460G in ransomware attack Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2019-07-29 15:36 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#27770

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:27:23 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>The USA government is possibly the
>worst "intruder" in your computers, and you will not see it coming,
>because it is done by the FBI and the CIA, and they don't show in your
>logs. You can do nothing against them. :-P
>
>Better you disconnect your computers and cultivate turnips instead :-P

When grown in certain soils, such as those rich in iron and/or other
specific minerals, turnips can be used to spy on you.

Or so I've been told. ;-)

On a more serious note, the potatoes have eyes and the corn is all ears,
so take care when strolling through the garden. Always speak in code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27751

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Now that's a closer answer. I see https://lite.ip2location.com/ has
| (bottom right of page) a list of countries, though I didn't investigate
| it.
|

   I use the MaxMind free database when processing my server
logs, though it's got some limitations, it's work intensive, and
addresses constantly change. I'm only using it after the fact,
out of curiosity. I've also seen people sharing numeric lists online,
especially to block China.

  But at some point this becomes unrealistic. Your front door
now opens to the world. The way to make it secure is not to
have logins, SQL backends, shopping carts components, etc,
on a website directly connected to data. That's nothing new.
But no one wants to accept that you can't have an internet
connected network and still have security, in spite of the fact
that it's been proved over and over again. So people wiseacre
about best security practices.

  People talk about blocking China, Russia, Eastern Europe,
Africa, yuppies, commies, rednecks.... What's left? White,
1st-world moms shopping for jumpers? Is there some reason
to trust Brazil and New Zealand?

  Many of the attack probes on my site are coming from Amazon
web services, which I am tempted to block, if only to block the
world-wide infection of the decency-eating bacteria known as
Bezos. But all of those filters hurt innocent people. Small
businesses are on Amazon web services. Shouild I block them
because they don't know how to manage security? Should I
block the millions of Chinese and Russians who need software
and can't afford to buy it, just to block the hundreds with
criminal motives? Someone suggested, "Who cares about them?
They don't buy product." But that's a petty, primitive, racist
approach. More to the point, you can't block them all. The
Internet doesn't fit into the "move-to-the-suburbs" approach
to crime prevention.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27754

On 29/07/2019 14.21, Mayayana wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
> 
> | Now that's a closer answer. I see https://lite.ip2location.com/ has
> | (bottom right of page) a list of countries, though I didn't investigate
> | it.
> |
> 
>    I use the MaxMind free database when processing my server
> logs, though it's got some limitations, it's work intensive, and
> addresses constantly change. I'm only using it after the fact,
> out of curiosity. I've also seen people sharing numeric lists online,
> especially to block China.
> 
>   But at some point this becomes unrealistic. Your front door
> now opens to the world. The way to make it secure is not to
> have logins, SQL backends, shopping carts components, etc,
> on a website directly connected to data. That's nothing new.
> But no one wants to accept that you can't have an internet
> connected network and still have security, in spite of the fact
> that it's been proved over and over again. So people wiseacre
> about best security practices.
> 
>   People talk about blocking China, Russia, Eastern Europe,
> Africa, yuppies, commies, rednecks.... What's left? White,
> 1st-world moms shopping for jumpers? Is there some reason
> to trust Brazil and New Zealand?
> 
>   Many of the attack probes on my site are coming from Amazon
> web services, which I am tempted to block, if only to block the
> world-wide infection of the decency-eating bacteria known as
> Bezos. But all of those filters hurt innocent people. Small
> businesses are on Amazon web services. Shouild I block them
> because they don't know how to manage security? Should I
> block the millions of Chinese and Russians who need software
> and can't afford to buy it, just to block the hundreds with
> criminal motives? Someone suggested, "Who cares about them?
> They don't buy product." But that's a petty, primitive, racist
> approach. More to the point, you can't block them all. The
> Internet doesn't fit into the "move-to-the-suburbs" approach
> to crime prevention.
> 
> 

Indeed...


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27756

On 29/07/2019 11:58, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Just looking at the russian-federation list linked to above, it's a very 
> long and bitty list; your "ipset" must work hard blocking all those, 
> plus the other countries you mention. (By "your" I mean whichever poster 
> said they were doing that.)

yes.

I would probably set upa mysql database and reconstitute an ipset file 
from it at boot or summat


-- 
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27740

On 29/07/2019 04.01, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <qhlf3n$bu0$2@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 28/07/2019 23:50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <95o01g-506.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 28/07/2019 15.50, Anonymous wrote:
>>> []
>>> (Someone else wrote - attribution snipped before this point:)
>>>>>> This is why I installed ipset on my server and block all of China,
>>>>>> Russia, North Korea and Slavic countries.  This is something that
>>>>>> most all servers should.  It is not like you are going to miss out
>>>>>> on any business from these corrupt, commie countries.
>>>>>
>>>>>   You need to include all of Africa too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And all of USA. That's the worst one, but you will not see it in the
>>>> logs.
>>>>
>>> Difficult, as very few use the .us TLD. I guess since (more or less)
>>> the  internet was invented/developed in USA, the .com, etc. TLDs
>>> predominate,  but I do continue to be surprised that people aren't
>>> _proud_ to use a  .us address.
>>
>> Am I intuiting that you think ipset works on domain names rather than
>> IP addresses?
>>
> Sorry, I hadn't noticed you said you were using ipset (of which I know
> nothing). I was thinking of host file and similar filtering.
>>
> How would you know which IP addresses are any given country anyway?

LOL. By using tools dedicated to do just that automatically.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27747

> 
>>
> How would you know which IP addresses are any given country 
anyway?
> 

https://www.countryipblocks.net/acl.php

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27737

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <95o01g-506.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. 
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 28/07/2019 15.50, Anonymous wrote:
> []
> (Someone else wrote - attribution snipped before this point:)
>>>> This is why I installed ipset on my server and block all of China,
>>>> Russia, North Korea and Slavic countries.  This is something that
>>>> most all servers should.  It is not like you are going to miss out
>>>> on any business from these corrupt, commie countries.
>>>
>>>   You need to include all of Africa too.
>>>
>>
>> And all of USA. That's the worst one, but you will not see it in the 
>> logs.
>>
> Difficult, as very few use the .us TLD. I guess since (more or less) the 
> internet was invented/developed in USA, the .com, etc. TLDs predominate, 
> but I do continue to be surprised that people aren't _proud_ to use a 
> .us address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain

   "...RFC 920 in October 1984, was a set of "general purpose domains":

       com, edu, gov, mil, org

    The net domain was added with the first implementation of these domains.
    The com, net, and org TLDs, despite their originally specified goals,
    are now open to use for any purpose.
   "

It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.

Whacky domains do not garner trust, especially country-domains
hijacked because they "sound nice for some other purpose".
That means you'll have trouble selling whacky domains,
if the SEO possibilities are limited, and the search
engines won't "put you at the top". Potential customers
aren't going to click a link that ends in .jokey . Would
you enter a credit card number in https://some.jokey ???
Or would you be suspicious ? I would feel more confident
in a https://some.com , because the site owner wanted
to blend in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain

    On 13 June 2012, ICANN announced nearly
    2,000 applications for top-level domains

    The first seven – bike, clothing, guru, holdings, plumbing,
                      singles, and ventures

    were released in 2014

When is the last time you saw a .plumbing ?

The purpose of this is some kind of dilution.

Surely they could come up with more than 2000 of those.

Look at how many emojis there are, for inspiration...

    Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27742

In message <qhlqh0$nu4$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> 
writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <95o01g-506.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. 
>><robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> On 28/07/2019 15.50, Anonymous wrote:
>> []
>> (Someone else wrote - attribution snipped before this point:)
>>>>> This is why I installed ipset on my server and block all of China,
>>>>> Russia, North Korea and Slavic countries.  This is something that
>>>>> most all servers should.  It is not like you are going to miss out
>>>>> on any business from these corrupt, commie countries.
>>>>
>>>>   You need to include all of Africa too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And all of USA. That's the worst one, but you will not see it in the 
>>>logs.
>>>
>> Difficult, as very few use the .us TLD. I guess since (more or less) 
>>the  internet was invented/developed in USA, the .com, etc. TLDs 
>>predominate,  but I do continue to be surprised that people aren't 
>>_proud_ to use a  .us address.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
>
>  "...RFC 920 in October 1984, was a set of "general purpose domains":
>
>      com, edu, gov, mil, org
>
>   The net domain was added with the first implementation of these domains.
>   The com, net, and org TLDs, despite their originally specified goals,
>   are now open to use for any purpose.
>  "
>
>It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
>
>Whacky domains do not garner trust, especially country-domains

I don't consider most country domains to be whacky - certainly not .uk, 
.de, .fr, .ch, .it, and most others I can think of.

>hijacked because they "sound nice for some other purpose".

Granted, yes, there are some: I gather .tv actually contributes 
significantly to the income of (the small island country of) Tuvalu, for 
example, because of what it means in the English-speaking world.

However, I actually respect a .us address, on the rare occasions I see 
one.

>That means you'll have trouble selling whacky domains,
>if the SEO possibilities are limited, and the search
>engines won't "put you at the top". Potential customers
[]
>   On 13 June 2012, ICANN announced nearly
>   2,000 applications for top-level domains
>
>   The first seven – bike, clothing, guru, holdings, plumbing,
>                     singles, and ventures
>
>   were released in 2014
>
>When is the last time you saw a .plumbing ?

I've never seen one - but that doesn't mean I'd think any less of one if 
I did! I don't think I'd have any particular suspicion of the other 
examples in your seven - well, other than my intrinsic suspicion of 
"holdings", "ventures", and "singles", but that's suspicion of the type 
of enterprise, not the domain principle (-:.
>
>The purpose of this is some kind of dilution.

The purpose of what? Dilution of what?
>
>Surely they could come up with more than 2000 of those.
>
>Look at how many emojis there are, for inspiration...

That gives me whatever the opposite of inspiration there is. [Though I 
do use them on Twitter as they only count as two (I think) characters.]
>
>   Paul
John
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A.  Top-posters.
Q.  What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27763

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> Difficult, as very few use the .us TLD. I guess since (more or less)
>> the internet was invented/developed in USA, the .com, etc. TLDs
>> predominate, but I do continue to be surprised that people aren't
>> _proud_ to use a .us address.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
>
>   "...RFC 920 in October 1984, was a set of "general purpose domains":
>
>       com, edu, gov, mil, org
>
>    The net domain was added with the first implementation of these domains.
>    The com, net, and org TLDs, despite their originally specified goals,
>    are now open to use for any purpose.
>   "
>
> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.

French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.

Trump failed in his election campaign. The slogan should have been "Make
.us great again". ;-)
-- 
Andreas

My random thoughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27764

On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:


>> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
> 
> French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
> Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
> otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
> from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.

Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
domain.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27767

In message <nt641g-ri8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. 
<robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>
>>> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>>> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
>>
>> French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
>> Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>> otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>> from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
>
>Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
>with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
>domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
>might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
>domain.
>
Can't speak for .es, but I presume they're mostly cheaper to register 
and keep registered than .com, .org etc.; they certainly are for .uk as 
opposed to .com and the rest. Which makes sense - there is more 
competition for .com, as companies from all nations will be after them.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27768

On 30/07/2019 03.30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <nt641g-ri8.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>>>> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
>>>
>>> French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
>>> Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>>> otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>>> from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
>>
>> Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
>> with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
>> domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
>> might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
>> domain.
>>
> Can't speak for .es, but I presume they're mostly cheaper to register
> and keep registered than .com, .org etc.; they certainly are for .uk as
> opposed to .com and the rest. Which makes sense - there is more
> competition for .com, as companies from all nations will be after them.

Yep.

Not only price, but competition. Also somebody may have registered and
parked the domain, hoping to sell it to you for a hefty price, which
happens more on .com domains.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27772

On 2019-07-30, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/07/2019 03.30, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> Can't speak for .es, but I presume they're mostly cheaper to register
>> and keep registered than .com, .org etc.; they certainly are for .uk as
>> opposed to .com and the rest. Which makes sense - there is more
>> competition for .com, as companies from all nations will be after them.
>
> Yep.
>
> Not only price, but competition. Also somebody may have registered and
> parked the domain, hoping to sell it to you for a hefty price, which
> happens more on .com domains.

a.k.a "cybersquatting"

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27769

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
> >> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
> >> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
> > 
> > French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
> > Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
> > otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
> > from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
> 
> Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
> with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
> domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
> might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
> domain.

  In our country, and - as others also mentioned - probably in most, a
company which only operates locally will use a local domain (i.e. .nl
for our country). A company which operates internationally will try to
get a .com domain (if it's available and affordable) *and* a local
domain.

  And, as already mentioned, there are countries which also use a local
domain, with a '.com' or '.co' prefix, i.e. <https://www.telstra.com.au>
(the main Australian telco (which also owns telstra.com, without .au)).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27773

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:55 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>>> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>>> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
>> 
>> French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
>> Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>> otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>> from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
>
> Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
> with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
> domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
> might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
> domain.

Like https://www.google.es/ ? ;-)
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27777

On 30/07/2019 21.02, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:55 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> On 29/07/2019 21.34, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:52:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
>>
>>>> It's got nothing to do with "proudness", and everything
>>>> to do with the history and "computed value" of the domains.
>>>
>>> French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,
>>> Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>>> otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>>> from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
>>
>> Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
>> with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
>> domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
>> might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
>> domain.
> 
> Like https://www.google.es/ ? ;-)

LOL.

Google buys their domain on all of them.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27781

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:52:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> On 30/07/2019 21.02, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:55 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Not really. We use .com for companies. My ISP gave me mail addresses
>>> with a .net domain. We don't attach much importance to having a .es
>>> domain. As a matter of fact, we consider a small unimportant company
>>> might use .es, while an important one with money will fight for a .com
>>> domain.
>> 
>> Like https://www.google.es/ ? ;-)
>
> LOL.
>
> Google buys their domain on all of them.

I know. That's why I added a smiley and also mentioned something similar
in a later article.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27765

On 2019-07-29, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:

> Trump failed in his election campaign. The slogan should have been "Make
> .us great again". ;-)

No, the actual slogan appeared at a gas station in Seattle.  It reads:

    Ban pre-shredded cheese.  Make America grate again.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27766

In message <87ftmomy7g.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach 
<ank@spamfence.net> writes:
[]
>French often use .fr, Germans .de, Spanish .es, British co.uk or org.uk,

And .ac.uk (academic), and I think a few others (.me.uk maybe). And a 
few years ago, just plain .uk - with no intervening bit - became 
available. (I took mine out not long after that; since I'm not a company 
or organisation, I didn't want .co.uk or .org.uk, but since there was a 
tiny chance I might sometime want to be, I didn't want a .me.uk or 
similar individual-type indication. It's a cross between a vanity domain 
and wanting to have something independent of service providers so I 
don't have to tell everyone about change of email if I fall out with a 
provider. [I've made sure the domain is registered to me not the company 
who handle my registration and email, so I can switch reasonably easily 
if I fall out with _them_.])

>Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.

I've always thought .com (etc.) should be for companies (or 
organisations, etc.) who are, or see that they might be in the near 
future, international, with ones that don't being .co.uk or .org.us or 
whatever as appropriate. With ones that were set up before the country 
domains really got going being allowed to continue as just .com, though 
maybe only for say 10 or 15 years, unless they could show they _do_ 
operate in more than one country.
>
>Trump failed in his election campaign. The slogan should have been "Make
>.us great again". ;-)

(-:
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27774

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 02:26:08 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
> In message <87ftmomy7g.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, Andreas Kohlbach
> <ank@spamfence.net> writes:

[...]

>>Canadians .ca and on and on. Suppose they are proud of it. They are
>>otherwise free to use .com or others. But if a page is in French (unless
>>from Quebec) it will most likely have an .fr or .ma (Morocco) TLD.
>
> I've always thought .com (etc.) should be for companies (or
> organisations, etc.) who are, or see that they might be in the near
> future, international, with ones that don't being .co.uk or .org.us or
> whatever as appropriate. With ones that were set up before the country
> domains really got going being allowed to continue as just .com,
> though maybe only for say 10 or 15 years, unless they could show they
> _do_ operate in more than one country.

Yes, seems right. Somebody mentioned larger enterprises, like Google, do
have .com but also localized TLDs for about every country. Well
https://www.google.kp/ doesn't exist for obvious reasons.
-- 
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web