this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
67 points (90.4% liked)

Selfhosted

52955 readers
428 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Recently I was locked out of my own Ghost blog platform because they decided they were going to add Email 2FA. I also cannot add any other authors because that requires email verification.

Today I was looking at installing Bonfire and came across this:

Bonfire requires working email for user signups, password resets, and notifications. Most installations will need email configuration before the instance is usable.

Setting up email is a pain in the ass, costs money, is dependent on 3rd parties, violates privacy, and is just completely unnecessary. Why wouldn't you give users the option to not use it? It's infuriating!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s a whole lot less work than configuring email.

It's a crapload more work to support XMPP/Matrix/whatever messaging on any platform than just using a robust, reliable, resilient, widely supported good old SMTP. For you it might be easier to input your account (which at least on XMPP resemble quite a bit of email address) but for the developer it's totally different thing. Also practically everyone accessing a website has an email address and if they'd decide to support some mesaging platform it'd make more sense to use whatsapp than XMPP since it's vastly more popular.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago

It’s a crapload more work to support XMPP/Matrix/whatever messaging on any platform than just using a robust, reliable, resilient, widely supported good old SMTP

For the minimal of sending out a message to their accounts, they are just as easy as each other. Heck, there are simple packages to send XMPP messages from the CLI.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's a crapload more work to support XMPP/Matrix/whatever messaging on any platform than...SMTP

It's absolutely not.

it'd make more sense to use whatsapp

It'd make far less sense considering both the fact that it's a Meta-owned proprietary data collection and advertising product, and also that they simply don't support such a functionality.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a crapload more work to support XMPP/Matrix/whatever messaging on any platform than…SMTP

It’s absolutely not.

And you know this since you've written code to manage both on different environments, right?

Also, whatsapp supports all kinds of "bots" and it has absolutely massive userspace compared to pretty much any other instant message application. It doesn't matter if you create the perfect protocol and platform for this kind of thing if there's 7 people globally using it.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

And you know this since you've written code to manage both on different environments, right?

You don't have to write code to configure Matrix/XMPP.

it has absolutely massive userspace

You keep saying this as if user adoption is the only thing that matters. 99% of self-hosted stuff has tiny "userspace" so I don't know what you're on about.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

You don’t have to write code to configure Matrix/XMPP.

You do realize that the developers need to write code to configure a Matrix/XMPP module? The module doesn't just appear out your immagination.

Then it will need to be maintained as security holes are discovered.

Tell me again why developers should spend the time and resources to maintain a feature that at best will have a marginal impact on the userbase, over focusing on the core of the project.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How you imagine things send messages to reset your passwords, sending notifications and whatever is currently managed via email than some piece of code creating and sending messages, managing possible errors with them and potentially also monitoring/logging the message traffic for statistics or debugging?

User adoption matters if you want your thing to be actually useful for the actual users. And supporting any messaging system requires effort, so it makes sense to spend limited resources on a thing which has the biggest userspace. If you want to run matrix server which has you and your dog using it, go ahead, but don't be surprised if you want to contact your neighbor and he'll look like you have two heads when you start to explain how to reach you.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

so it makes sense to spend limited resources on a thing which has the biggest userspace

It makes zero sense to spend any resources on adding compatibility with proprietary and malicious protocols, regardless of "userspace".

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

I had a look at the system, and it is a commercial product, I would imagine that their customers have requested these features.

Since you are a customer, why not request your features to be added as well?

Or, better yet, since you have explained that creating an XMPP/Matrix module as an alternative to email requires no coding, and the plattform is open source, why not just slap it together yourself?