← Back to context

Comment by NewJazz

20 hours ago

This isn't being hard on abuse though, this is being lazy and incompetent.

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.

  • 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?

    • You think no bad actor thinks of that, using subdomains or whatnot?

      Nor did I say anything about wanting a registry acting on it, it's just that the motivations and reasons are incredibly clear. At least to me.

      And let me also reiterate that I clearly said that it should be a thought-out process and they haven't thought it out.