HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
Domain-Connect
spec
Rich Text Format2021–2023
Domain-Connect / spec

spec

Domain Connect Specification

2Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
113GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Domain Connect Specification

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2021-12-16 22:10:45 UTC to 2023-05-05 15:00:07 UTC.

012021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsAug 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsMay 2023

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 20212021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20222022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20222022-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20222022-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20222022-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20222022-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20222022-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20222022-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Oct 20222022-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20222022-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20222022-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20232023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20232023-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20232023-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20232023-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
Thanks for mentioning this protocol – I've been a fan of Domain Connect [1] for many years and referenced it in one of my earlier comments [2]. Our Record Creator tool [3] integrates with Domain Connect, so if you want to setup a Domain Verification record for a domain with a registrar that's onboarded with Domain Connect, it will simplify the TXT record creation. > Domain connect allows providers to request fine grained access to domain records, and for customers to allow/disallow those records, for a limited period of time. From memory, the async flow enables this but I've not seen permission control available to customers in the way you describe. Can you point me at a screenshot or blog post? As far as I've seen, these parts of the protocol have not been implemented particularly well anywhere. I'd say this is partly because the Async f
Read the rest
low is far more complicated than the more basic flow, which most registrars and service providers adopted. > This not only addresses domain verification but also configuration of complex configurations like spf and max records. In my view, simplifying the setup of SPF, MX, A, CNAME records is where Domain Connect really shines. As far as domain verification goes, I would argue that the two solutions are attacking a similar problem (friction for users creating DNS records) but in quite different ways: Domain Connect simplifies the creation of the DNS TXT records that all service providers currently ask you to create. In contrast, the Domain Verification protocol: - Allows you to setup and manage multiple records - Enables permission based access - Enables time-limited access - Most importantly, it reduces the amount of DNS records you have to create since the first one you setup can be used in onboarding with future service providers. - It's far simpler to implement, once email verification is taken care the actual Domain Verification check is five lines of code. > It works, and works well, and is supported by all the major domain providers. You're right that registrar adoption is quite high, which is because it was a GoDaddy and 1&1 (now IONOS) initiative but when I last checked it wasn't implemented at Google, Facebook and many of the others larger providers for domain verification (to be clear: neither is my solution!!!) 1. https://github.com/Domain-Connect/spec/blob/master/Domain%20... (http://www.domainconnect.org currently failing with cert expiry) 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35828772 3. https://domainverification.org/create-record
In Show HN: Make domain verification as easy as verifying an email or phone number
Now if only there was a popular registrar with a streamlined interface that wasn't constantly trying to up sell you. Personally I would prefer to see registrars limit themselves to providing domain names. But for that to work seamlessly they all need to support an open DNS protocol that makes it easy for users to delegate subdomains to 3rd-party apps and services. Something like DomainConnect[0] but with better support for selfhosting[1]. [0]: https://www.domainconnect.org/ [1]: https://github.com/Domain-Connect/spec/issues/64
In Your Organization should run its own Mastodon server
IMO this is an API that should be implemented on your end (dnsimple), not theirs. There are a relatively small number of DNS providers which all provide essentially the same interface (CRUD operations on records), but there are a huge number of services that need to set up DNS records, including open source projects self-hosted by many individuals. It's not realistic for DNS providers to implement integration with every possible service, but the opposite is totally doable. If dnsimple implemented something like DomainConnect, Fastmail could easily integrate. And it's a win-win because it sends traffic your way. As I said, I found[0] DomainConnect to not be a good fit for open source projects in its current form. I've done some work on a new protocol which you can learn more about here[1]. Would be interested to hear your thoughts from the
Read the rest
In Integrating with Fastmail
Yeah, I read the website and the entire spec. I think it's pretty good, but it's built by big names for big names. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm concerned it might not be appropriate for things like quickly pointing a simple A Record at a self-hosted open source service. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm having a good discussion with the spec developers here: https://github.com/Domain-Connect/spec/issues/64
In Mess with DNS

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.