Welp... just ate 200k sats of my coin

What I am proposing was a setup wizard combined with a vps. To make it easy to be self-sovereign with your email.

Dead men tell no tales

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've been running email servers for over 30 years, I know what I'm talking about. Not folklore.

Running an email server for your personal email address is a completely different problem than running an email service. The IP reputation (RBL) problem is not a problem so long as you aren't running it from a dynamic address or a IP pool marked as residential internet. Abuse handling again isn't a problem as long as you aren't abusing your own server. Forwarding breakage again isn't a problem if you are running your own server and your own local root-DNS, which is trivial with bind9. There are several gotchas, such as not knowing you can't check RBLs from a public DNS like Google's public servers. But this all can be handled by a setup wizard. Again, running your own vps for your own email on your own domain is not that hard and that is what SMTP was designed for. As long as you don't do stupid things like open up your server as a global delivery service, its going to work fine. My original comment, to use is a real option for having your own private email address.

is always right

I finally see the failure mode of spark, and that means it is very much a custodial system, no different than a cashu mint, but with worse privacy.

Jew-haters are in favor of Israelis blowing up Christian and Muslim children in Gaza and Palestine. I'm confused.

As long as you're not *actually* spamming, you aren't going to be getting flagged on the RBLs

SPF, DKIM, DMARC and SRV and TXT DNS records aren't rocket science. These could be done through a setup wizard paired with a lightning-paid vps like

Lol

Ok bye bot

Then why is it in the play store?

This is a great reframe

listening to you on 's TGFN podcast. What are your thoughts on this problem if framed this way?

Lol AI didn't like my style. AI version: This is not a place for minors. Minors need governed access to public spaces. That is true in streets, malls, schools, shops, and it is true on the internet. Not because children belong under state control, but because children are under parental custody. An unsupervised child wandering into adult public space should be guided back under parental authority, not treated as an autonomous consumer. The confusion began before the internet. Public space entered the home through radio and television. Parents became accustomed to allowing outside voices direct access to their children. Not content filtered by father and mother. Content filtered by corporations, advertisers, entertainers, political interests, and later algorithms. That access formed appetites. It normalized rebellion, immodesty, romanticized lust, status anxiety, and emotional manipulation. Much of what earlier generations called entertainment was sexualized by innuendo long before it became explicit by image. Parents would not have intentionally purchased much of this content for their children, but broadcast media smuggled it into the household as culture. Television intensified it. The mother of the household was targeted with relationship drama, envy, sensuality, and dissatisfaction. The children were targeted with rebellion and appetite. Once the moral imagination of the home is captured, the household becomes porous. Now we have the internet. The internet is not merely a library. It is a borderless public square, marketplace, red-light district, propaganda network, gambling hall, recruitment center, classroom, church, sewer, and archive all fused into one interface. Would I let my child roam freely there? No. I was online before most people knew what online meant. Dial-up BBSs. Early internet. AX.25 packet radio. Analog cell phones. I know what children can find because I know what was available even when the network was primitive. The modern internet is infinitely more refined in its ability to seduce, addict, radicalize, sexualize, and deform attention. The government exploits the parental failure here. Parents have been trained to fear limiting access to information. They are told that boundaries are “controlling,” “overprotective,” or “sheltering.” That is false. Protecting children from adult public space is not censorship. It is parenting. The issue is not whether free speech should exist. The issue is whether children should be given unrestricted access to every adult public forum, vice market, ideology stream, pornographic lure, manipulative algorithm, and anonymous stranger on earth. They should not. Use tools like Family Link, PearGuard, router-level filtering, DNS filtering, device restrictions, and explicit website allowlists. Do not merely blacklist the worst things. Whitelist what is permitted. Delay general internet access. Supervise social media. Treat phones as tools, not rights. Teach discernment slowly, under authority, as maturity develops. Children may complain. That is not the measure. The measure is whether they were guarded while they lacked wisdom, then trained to exercise freedom once they could bear its moral weight.

No, an asshole who identifies as a frog. Lol

A frog assh⭕️le. Makes perfect sense.

Ok, I think I finally know what the red circle means

You're off by 1000x

You can purchase a vps for sats and run your own email server. Go federated protocols! (sarcasm)