> native notifications working without third-party push notification servers or anything similar

Based on UnifiedPush or something different? Curious since I think I haven't encountered a reliable one yet.

Some mails never reach the inbox; I wasn't able to receive GitHub verification emails in particular. I'm curious, does GitHub connect to the bridge in practice, or it doesn't show any sign of attempting to send email there at all?

Another thing I notice is both `uid.ovh` and `nmail.li` don't have DNSSEC enabled. I have no idea whether it breaks anything, but who knows what other servers might additionally check; perhaps enabling DNSSEC would be useful for the bridge in particular.

> Catering to the dumbest of the dumb is a straw man argument

This teaches me something about argumentation; thanks for your wisdom.

I definitely don't support many things normies consider socially normal/acceptable when it comes to security and sovereignty in particular (the Google-based login is included, I don't support it), though I might use normality as an argument occasionally. Time to drop this habit.

Yet I don't support the idea that normies don't deserve censorship-resistant and zero-trust technologies either—Nostr in particular. At some point all this will become a normality (hopefully in some healthy way, not by pasting raw nsec on random pages or something), and I think it's great. Limiting this (to some kind of "smart enough" people) feels to me like saying normies don't deserve the internet at all, that they should be somehow separate from it. I might talk about it on my video channel in the future; looks like this paradox of "equal rights for everyone except <this category of people that I'm sure are backwards/dangerous/crazy>" is so deep; I can't properly articulate it in messages right now.

I'm not currently convinced that Nostr is risking becoming another Twitter. I think that some kind of natural segregation will happen anyway, but this will take place in the network. Feed algorithms perhaps will take place in such segregation. Many of us will ignore these algorithms and will keep building connections in a more natural way. Some of us will build private invite-only communities, etc.

Wow, you've got a signer with mlock-ed memory here as well. This is awesome! I'm curious, have you considered using `memfd_secret`?

https://laantungir.net/git/laantungir/n_signer

> The signer is built into the OS

Will it receive memory hardening? Zeroisation before deinitialization in particular (but ideally I'd love to see the usage of `memfd_secret`, which will make an unencrypted key impossible to write to a swap partition/file).

> **Email** survives as decentralized-on-paper

Except it's hard to call it decentralized at all. It's a distributed system with many centers, a federated system.

It has some limited delivery guarantee in case of failure, but this fault tolerance is not implemented using decentralization: other servers won't preserve emails if a receiver server was down for too long.

And still it relies on DNS too much, which is another huge distributed and much more centralized system.

Nostr is much better. Although DMs reliability still sucks in practice, mostly due to immature clients.

Thanks, I'm not sure if I got your point.

Paid relays in practice significantly decrease spam, but that's unrelated to those who desperately send takedown letters to relay operators (like in the case I referred to under the picture).

They send these letters anyway for a formal reason (probably because lawyers tell them to do that); it's not a question of whether these letters will be read or not at all.

They either send them through a relay feedback form or possibly email/DM the relay operator directly. Or, if there are no more options left, they would likely send it to the hosting provider or/and domain registrar, no matter whether it's a paid relay or not.

Taking into account what's currently happening to domain registrars and some hosting providers (they fail to properly analyze the "takedown letters" and randomly ban their clients, basically), it'd be better if these letters reached relay operators directly. BUT not without being informed that their letter will be published.

That's not just ethics; I believe it's reasonable and beneficial to both sides of such conflicts.

This no longer reproduces. A browser used to randomly fail to establish a connection to the relay.

I wish they were honestly available through their hidden onion service, though. I don't know what they are doing, but non-techie people are definitely at risk of leaking their identities through tor exit nodes.