Is the "open source" label still comically misleading? [0]
I tried it out, didn't read the fine print, filed an issue, never looked at it again.
Because "It keeps user data local and private." is kind of one of the main benefits.
I tried it out, didn't read the fine print, filed an issue, never looked at it again.
Because "It keeps user data local and private." is kind of one of the main benefits.
Originally Nylas Mail was OSS, but tied to the Nylas Cloud APIs (which did the actual mail processing.)
The cloud strategy was too expensive, and in version 2.0 the entire mail-sync system was moved into the client and open sourced. (https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail/tree/master/packages/cli...). It's now much more like Thunderbird. There's a bit of cloud processing for snoozing / send later, etc., but it no longer syncs all your email through the cloud.
If not (yet), would it at least be technically feasible, and would supporting this be an option for you?
We totally encourage folks to fork the project and take it in whatever direction they want. If you want to chat with other devs in the community, you should join our Slack room: http://slack-invite.nylas.com/
(I work at Nylas)
None of that has any appeal to me, I'd much rather a mail system which doesn't require using someone else's server.
Maybe this isn't a priority for other people, but just putting it out there. This is what's making me not use Nylas today.
Seems sufficient.
A good alternative in my opinion would be just to make some parts optional. Does not sound too hard, to implement (if the codebase is well done)