Some people would prefer to use their own issue tracker or discussion forum. I don't see that as strange at all, given that with GH issues you don't have full control over the data or experience.

Afaict, its not like they are reporting a drop everything issue. Did anyone actually think that a determined adversary would not be able to distinguish between one of their proxies and a generic TLS server, given sufficient resources?

Because people aren't clairvoyant and it is reasonable to assume that people that post stuff on GitHub accept issues, just like the main Signal account does. The generic message, without original clarity in how to note an issue, is easy to interpret as being ignored. Especially as they had a false positive ban being flagged as spam. I understand Signal's pov and I understand DuckSoft's. I think Signal has the higher responsibility in clarity than some random person trying to note a flaw they found.

Look, you can like Signal and still think they made the wrong move. I've used it every day for years and converted the majority of my friends. No one expects Signal to be perfect.

Luckily they have a generic message to read. No clairvoyancey required.

I'm not defending signal here because i just like signal. Almost any other open source project would have responded the same way. Many would probably have been less polite about it. If you send a personalized note to everyone who reports a bug incorretly, you won't have any time to actually fix bugs.

Edit: i agree though that the false positive spam ban is a bit unfortunate. Shit happens sometimes. I maintain the generic message was totally reasonable and they should not do anything different in that regard if they could do it over again. The spam ban however was understandable but obviously should not have happened.