On 2026-08-31 05:27, [email protected] wrote:
Thank you for looking, and for being specific. Three of those four are
fair; I have fixed two and the third is in hand. The fourth I think is
a misreading, but an understandable one given the first.
Source. You are right, and it was the worst of the four. It is now
published:
https://codeberg.org/cevinpalmer/palmer-mail
GPL-3.0-or-later, with the LICENSE file in the tree since before the
first release. The omission was mine — the repository was prepared and
I filed before publishing it. It includes the debian/ directory, so
the packaging is readable too.
One thing you will notice and I would rather explain than have you
find: the history starts at a single commit. Development happened in a
private repository that is not published, and the README says so on
the front page rather than leaving it as a question.
The website. Fair. That is a consultancy site Palmer Mail happens to
live on, and it reads exactly as badly as you describe. I thought I had
a little more time to complete it, but the dedicated
site is being set up; I will follow up with the URL rather than point
you at something half-built.
Screenshots. Also fair, and not yet done. They will go on that site.
On advertising, which I think is the substantive objection.
The claim on the website is about the build I distribute myself. It is
not what a Debian package would contain, and the code is now readable
so this is checkable rather than a promise:
- There is no ad network, no bidding, no tracking and no fetch. The
monetization module says so in its own docstring and there is
nothing in the tree that contradicts it.
- The package contains no ad creative. The only images shipped are
the two application icons. A creative is a local file that someone
places deliberately at a known path; a default install displays
none.
- Nothing is behind payment. No feature is gated, and there is a test
that enforces it: no user-facing string may suggest that paying
unlocks a feature or that not paying takes one away.
- The application makes no network request of its own for any of
this. The support URL is opened in the user's browser via
QDesktopServices; nothing is called automatically.
- The only scheduled prompt is a renewal reminder, and it requires an
activated subscription. On an install that has never activated one
it is unreachable, and nothing is shown after a subscription
lapses.
So a Debian user would see an optional support link and nothing else.
If that is still more than Debian wants, I can remove the monetization
surface from the packaged build entirely, and I will if that is the
cleaner arrangement. It is not a build-time flag today, but making it
one is a small change and I would rather do it than argue the point.
More generally the client has no telemetry and makes no network
connection other than to the mail servers a user configures.
I would rather hear the objection now than after a sponsor has spent
time on it, so if any of this is still disqualifying I would genuinely
like to know.
Thank you and Best Regards
Cevin Palmer
On 2026-08-31T12:29:20+02:00, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
I can be mistaken, but this seems to be a slop at best.
I'm always interested in new email/calendar clients, and there are a
few
issues here:
- No source available, although the claim is that it is open source
- No screenshots. Curious for for a PIM
- A curious website, talking about SAP first
- It says it's free, with advertisement, and payment to remove them.
No
chance to include this in Debian I guess.
