Congrats on the launch! This is looking super cool. What are your thoughts on project monetisation / long term sustainability?
Also, from the AGENTS.md
> # Working with the owner
> The standing instruction is to decide on taste and keep going without stopping to ask: build a complete, good-looking client. Ask only for decisions that are theirs, such as the licence or anything outward facing.
the instructions are for the task I assign to Claude, most of the times it was stopping for feedback, I prefer to check in the end rather than spoon feeding it
This is actually a very tricky problem. We solve this by never rendering mails in trusted origin. It's basically sanitisation + isolated sandboxed iframe for defence in depth + standard security stuff like CSP headers. When I was looking into this, I was surprised how many popular mail clients relay primarily on sanitization and render mails within trusted origin (ex: marco, superhuman).
Other interesting problem to solve for mail clients is the editor. You should be able to forward/edit untrusted html content. Source: I develop tecotype.com for mac/linux/windows.
Was looking for exactly this type of email app last week and nothing had the mix of features tecotype has and definitely not as polished. Yes, I know i could cobble all this together but you've basically answered my prayers. Eagerly awaiting the linux release!
Thank you very much for the warm words. Mail clients are surprisingly tricky problem and it took way more effort than I initially anticipated :)
For example, I'm using catch-all address with fastmail. I wasn't able to find any client with the right design that would allow me to define sender address and email account separately during composing, so I can use "[email protected] via [email protected]" as a sender.
You can send "ping me when linux available" and I'll follow up.
I use a similar catch-all scheme and would love to define the sender and email account separately. So many companies see that my account email is: [email protected] and require support requests to come from that address. So then ive got to then turn that alias into a mailbox - its quite frustrating.
If I can be a beggar and a chooser: The vim keystrokes to go to the top or bottom of the current email list and/or the conversation thread items are sorely missed.
Sorry, it isn't publicly released yet for lin/win. I'm planning to ship via Flatpak as it supports sandboxed installs and explicit permission declarations. Do you think it's the right choice?
I think Flatpak is a good choice for most users. The main issue is that Ubuntu is perhaps still the largest Linux distro and doesn’t come with Flatpak installed by default.
One good alternative is AppImage. Works on every distro out of the box, but doesn’t have the permission system of Flatpak.
I can't say if the choice is right or wrong really, these are not easy choices. I use Arch Linux and generally install custom things from source, but I'm not necessarily your ideal market!
From the website I only see download for mac. Where are those linux/windows builds? I'm interested in testing. Could not find any repository or something resembling a more technical page.
Sorry, it isn't publicly released yet for linux/win. I'm planning on releasing it via Flatpak soon. On the technical side, you can reach out to me via email or ask here. Happy to answer any of your questions. This is a paid, closed source product.
It's possible for the app to poll the server for new messages. iOS also supports light background work that can poll server from time to time and trigger notification on the device, rather than using apple's push notification infra.
The trade off is that you gain some extra privacy with simpler architecture and accept that some notifications will be delayed as ios decides when to run the bg job for the app.
source: I develop e2e app with self-hostable server (145 lines of zero deps python for the whole server).
I assume the only way it to be a good citizen: an app someone uses often, app itself is low cpu/memory, BG app refresh quick/cheap/doesn't drain much energy.
But yeah, if you need a predictable way is either APN or safari push notifications.
Thanks, I considered ruby initially and it's possible for the relay (even bash would work :)).
For the local sync, I needed sqlite and python comes with sqlite client in a standard lib, ruby requires a gem.
I wanted core parts of the infra (relay and sync) to be implemented with zero external language dependencies. I didn't want to have a relay in ruby and sync in python. TUI example uses textual, so everything fits in a single language.
I think it comes down to trust and maintenance cost. I wanted to minimise external dependencies, so the whole implementation is under 500 lines of code using only standard tooling.
The implementation depends on OpenSSH, Python, Docker and age. Highly trusted / audited / scrutinised / maintained code. This fits well with e2e messaging infra.
You're free to release your own work with Creative Commons License (or any other license that shorten the copyright).
> Copyright is a monopoly that the government creates on purpose
Creative work takes a lot of effort and resources (ex: movie production, games, books (hello Knuth)) and can be easily copied/imitated in a digital age.
It you think copyright should be shorter to everyone, then inheriting something valuable shouldn't be a thing as well?
> It you think copyright should be shorter to everyone, then inheriting something valuable shouldn't be a thing as well?
inheritance has nothing to do with copyright. Financial assets are not monopolies. Copyright is only a valuable asset because of the granted monopoly on copying/distribution.
Therefore, to reduce the value copyright has (as it currently does seem to have too much), reducing the granted terms should be sufficient. Like patents, a good 20 years seems like a sufficiently long time to recover cost of production, while letting people who are currently alive to produce derivatives of it afterwards.
Why you want to reduce value of creative work, but not a value of other assets? I think copyright should be as long as ownership of any other asset.
If I spend $20m on building a house or creating a computer game, why house can be inherited indefinitely and creative work is not? I would have a monopoly on this specific building and on this specific creative work, but anyone is free to build/create anything else.
If J. Rowling created Harry Potter universe, why her family can't own it indefinitely? We somehow accept this notion for other assets, but treat copyright differently.
p.s. creative work is more valuable as it has something that money can't buy (authenticity, taste, sincerity, etc)
> why house can be inherited indefinitely and creative work is not
Because copying houses is inherently expensive, while copying creative works is inherently free. To make creative works act like houses you have to add artificial cost to copying, which is a tax the public has to pay for the entire duration of copyright.
If the public has to pay a tax they should get something out of it, and that something is the incentive for authors to create new works. But does copyright have to be for life + 70 in order to incentivize new works? Clearly not! It could be much shorter while still providing plenty of incentive.
Public doesn't pay a creative tax. You're free to buy or not buy any creative work. This is different with other assets though, you have to pay someone indefinitely to rent a place to live, even though building (or land) was built hundreds years ago and just gets inherited by new generation of landlords every 75 years.
Any price above the marginal cost produces dead-weight loss. Dead-weight loss causes less value to be created than is possible.
What we need is a system that subsidizes the value created by the inventor, without any restrictions for the rest of society. Without any restrictions will allow every innovation to maximize the value that it is able to create. Currently an innovation can be hampered because the person who created that innovation is not the one best able to utilize that innovation.
One way to accomplish this is through an Innovation Prize Model while Patents and Copyrights be abolished. The way it would work is that once you've come up with some innovation, you have a choice. You can either keep it secret, or you can reveal the secret. If you reveal the secret, the government could grant you a 30 year bond based on the value of this innovation. The bond will have a minimum value, and if it's discovered within the 30 year window that the innovation is more valuable than previously suspected, value will be added to that bond. You would then have an option, to keep the bond for the 30 years, or you could sell a portion of this bond to others to instantly get cash. There could be a market for these that made it easy to trade and discover expected values.
It's clear from the dead-weight loss portion that overall value will be much higher than the existing scenario, so this payment will be much higher than any profits that copyright holders currently accrue.
> You're free to buy or not buy any creative work.
You also don't have to rent/buy a place to live, but I wouldn't want to live a life without a roof over my head or access to creative works of my culture. When you accept that access to media is a necessity (and people today do treat it as such, just try finding someone who doesn't listen to music, watch videos, read books...), you clearly see that having copyright is a decision made by the state that results in wealth transfer from every citizen to authors and publishers.
Those authors/publishers do provide value, so it's not necessarily a bad thing, but as with every market intervention, the specifics need to be carefully considered.
Why don't the builders get infinite royalties on use of that house? Wouldn't that also be reasonable. At least as long as it stands. I don't think that would be unfair comparison.
I mean the actual workers. I do not get royalty checks for the building I helped on during one summer. Homeowners don't send monthly money to workers that build their house or renovated it.
It's the same in creative work creation, no? Filming crew / game devs don't own any copyright and property rights. They explicitly give it up under contract/hiring terms.
>Why you want to reduce value of creative work, but not a value of other assets?
The framing isn't charitable. People want to weaken copyright because it is a government granted monopoly. There are negative economic effects (i.e., for everyone) to government granted monopolies. Other assets generally aren't government granted monopolies.
Owning the copyright to a work grants the exclusive right to profit off that work, but so does owning a house grant the exclusive right to profit off that house. House ownership is not a monopoly because there are other houses, and you can build a new one if there's sufficient demand to justify the cost. Similarly, copyright ownership is not a monopoly because there are other copyrighted works, and you can make a new one if there's sufficient demand to justify the cost.
The negative economic effects of monopolies stem from a lack of competition leading to insufficient supply, but there's no lack of competition or insufficient supply of copyrighted works. Even if copyright were indefinite like other property rights, it wouldn't stymie the supply of new works, but rather expand investment due to raising the future expected profit.
> copyright ownership is not a monopoly because there are other copyrighted works
they are not fungible, unlike houses.
Also, if you could copy a house like you could copy digital goods (i would download a car), i am also going to claim that the "monopoly" on the house must also be shortened.
Sure, there are idiosyncratic preferences and some people really want that one famous work, but there are also idiosyncratic preferences when it comes to houses, and particularly famous houses command a premium, but that doesn't render houses nonfungible. For most people, any house they enjoy living in will do, and any content they enjoy consuming will do.
You would download a house or a car, but the people making new houses or cars would only offer them for download if they can charge enough for each copy to make back their original investment. So houses and cars could be expected to cost about as much as a movie ticket or book or game. That those are currently much cheaper is also an indication that competition is successfully working to drive down prices close to the cost of production.
Her family can own their copies of Harry Potter forever.
But copyright restricts others from building on top of previous works. Can her family forever sue anyone into poverty for naming a wizard “Harry”? Does that even make sense in 100 years from now when most people have never heard of Harry Potter anymore?
For your building analogy, it would be more like the builders created your building there, and now you own it. It has a red roof and blue shutters. And also the government passed a law that said nobody else can own a building ever again with a red roof and blue shutters, otherwise you, the owner of the idea of those colors, can take possession of every new building like that.
I would encourage you to read about the Edward Snowden guy and the PRISM program on wikipedia and most recent attempts of EU to ban the encryption.
Also, here is what Pavel Durov mentioned recently in interview to Tucker Carlson
> In the US you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it with using this process called the gag order.
It doesn't matter what anyone claims on the landing page. Assume if it's stored somewhere, it'll get leaked eventually and the transitioning/hosting government already has an access and decryption keys.
You are right. I still think it’s better if only our guys have this information than both, our guys and their guys. At least Western companies have the possibility to get regulated if political winds change.
Also, from the AGENTS.md
> # Working with the owner
> The standing instruction is to decide on taste and keep going without stopping to ask: build a complete, good-looking client. Ask only for decisions that are theirs, such as the licence or anything outward facing.
Any learnings from this kind of interaction?