The argument against adopting nostr hinges on several key points, the first being the inherent complexity and unfamiliarity associated with distributed systems like nostr compared to the well-understood mechanisms of mailing lists. There are concerns about the practicalities of subscription, archival access, and searchability within such a system, which are not readily addressed by nostr's design.

Another significant issue is content management. On social platforms like nostr, distinguishing between relevant developer discussions and unrelated or disruptive content becomes a challenge. This difficulty is exacerbated by the lack of a separate subject line feature, which is crucial for efficiently identifying and filtering content of interest without having to engage with each message fully.

Email, by contrast, is highlighted as a universally accessible and comprehensible platform, essential for maintaining low barriers to entry in open source initiatives. Email's ubiquity ensures that participation in development discussions is not limited to a tech-savvy subset of potential contributors who are willing to navigate the hurdles of account creation or specific client downloads required by alternative platforms.

Lastly, the email emphasizes an impending deadline for finding a replacement communication solution, as the current mailing list is scheduled to be phased out by the end of the year. Given this time constraint, solutions that necessitate the development of custom software or bridges are deemed impractical. This underscores the need for a readily implementable alternative that aligns with the open and accessible ethos of open source development, a criterion that email or similar platforms more closely meet than nostr or analogous systems.