[geeks] Looking for subdomain?

[Mouse]

>> They are.  The latter is closer to what I want.  I am already
>> running all relevant services (such as DNS and mail) myself; the
>> only thing I was looking for is domain registration without
>> requiring me to jump through Web hoops [...]
> I'm not aware of any domain registrar that offers something other
> than a web portal to do things like renewal, delegation to your name
> servers, confirm whois information, and the likes.

Neither was I, nor was I expecting to find one.  Turns out GHI, the
company recommended by DEF, does indeed seem to be willing to do it all
over the phone; there's also been a little touch of (unsecured) email,
but I'm not sure how essential that's actually been.  (Email with DEF
has provided essential or near-essential data, but with GHI, not sure.)

> There may be a registrar that is willing to do this over phone and /
> or email and / or (certified) physical mail.  But I suspect finding
> them /without/ using the web / visiting web pages is nigh impossible.

A work colleague pointed me at one option, which I can perhaps call
JKL.  DEF, in the email announcing that they were dropping their
registrar-reseller role as of 2021-08-03, suggested GHI.  On
investigating them, GHI turned out to be a significantly better fit for
me: they're a Canadian company, not a USA company, which means buying
more local; also means they quote prices in Canadian dollars by
default.  Their pricing structure makes more sense to me.  (JKL charged
something like $10 for the transfer and $15/year for extensions at the
time of the transfer, but after that their price jumped to some $40-$45
per year.  And, while I didn't check it out in detail, I suspect those
$ are USD.  GHI charged more like $24 per year, including the transfer,
whether before or after transfer, feeling less bait-and-switch-y, and
those $ are CAD.)  And, so far, GHI has been a good fit for me.

Actually, GHI has been nothing but positive for me, so them I really
don't need to blind.  GHI is EasyDNS.

> You /might/ be able to get someone to be an agent and do the web work
> on your behalf.

I suspect that to some extent that's what's happening with EasyDNS, but
if they want to use the Web internally that's up to them.  I have had
two, I think it is, (other) friends suggest that possibility, but it
looks as though it won't be needed.

>> However, it's more like, needing to avoid, not just wanting to -
>> though I suppose the line between need and want is a bit fuzzy.
> I'm curious what the need is.  But it doesn't matter.

Needing to in that I don't have HTTPS support.

> Something that is quite incompatible with contemporary web would be
> tantamount to actual /need/.

Lack of HTTPS support is close to incompatible with the contemporary
Web.  There used to be a few websites that I thought the net was better
for having.  They have now all drunk the "ram HTTPS down everyone's
collective throat" koolaid.  There are still a few fringe websites left
that don't insist on HTTPS, but they are relatively minor.  (My blah is
an example.)

>> In particular, I neither have nor want HTTPS support, [...]
> Are you referring to the client aspect?  As in you do not have a web
> browser (et al.) that supports HTTPS?

Yes.  (Well, when I'm at work I somewhat have access to such things on
work machines.  Depending on a work machine for this, even if I wanted
to, strikes me as a very bad idea.)

Twice, I've tried to add HTTPS support to the lynx I use; each time I
got about four levels deep in yak shaving before running into something
(Perl?) that was ridiculously heavyweight for the end goal and giving
up.  I probably could find or build enough infrastructure to add HTTPS
support, but it's a twisty maze of standards all pointing to one
another, not something I would enjoy disentaangling, and I think may
even involve a few pay-to-play pseudo-standards.  And I don't really
_want_ HTTPS support to begin with, so it's not likely to happen soon.

I suppose I could version-jump lynx, but that has a remarkably high
activation energy, to borrow a term from chemistry, and who knows what
other issues trying may bring.

That's the pragmatic basis.  There's an emotional basis, too, which,
being emotional, is much fuzzier; that's just hating the Web as an icon
of the mainstream takeover of the net and as a result not wanting to
use it for _anything_, not even the things that I can, from a pragmatic
point of view, use it for.  I'm a bit conflicted about even just
running bozohttpd exporting my anonymous FTP area.  (There are also the
various technical issues with the Web, but probably not all that much
worse than other things I do use without (much) qualm.)

I have some guesses at why I feel so much venom towards the Web.  So
far they are just guesses.  It may change someday, but that doesn't
seem likely to happen anytime soon.

>> Because I do not like registrar privacy.  I think it should not
>> exist; [...].  I am not willing to stay under such an umbrella.
> The thing that's confusing me is that I'm not aware of any registrar
> /forcing/ you to use privacy features.

I'm a little shaky on the difference between "registrar" and
"reseller".  Company DEF apparently does not offer the option of
avoiding "privacy" for domains they handle; perhaps they're not
strictly a registrar, instead being a reseller, but as far as the
domain holder is concerned that's a distinction mostly without a
difference.  (And, now, it seems DEF isn't going to be doing domain
registration at all anyway.)

> I bring this up, because I think that disabling the optional privacy
> would align with what I understand your desires to be.

Yes, in that regard it would.  Turns out EasyDNS does offer "privacy",
but at an extra cost, which is perfect from my perspective.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B