Proposal: rewrite from compiled binary to open Python source code

[sandikodev]

Background

I've been following this project for a while — the idea is solid. But scrolling through the issues (#1, #4, #9) it's clear a lot of people are confused why there's no .py file, only a compiled .exe. That's what got me looking closer.

What I found

A few things that need attention:

1. No source code in the repo. The only thing tracked is a 52MB PyInstaller binary. Nobody can review, audit, or learn from it. Even the auto_gmail_creator.py everyone expects isn't there — it's just the .exe renamed.

2. Sensitive data in git history. A 5sim API key (JWT token), a default password, and user-agent lists are all committed and publicly visible. The .gitignore that once existed was intentionally deleted in commit d709ab4.

3. The LICENSE prohibits contributions. The current proprietary license says "You may NOT copy, modify, distribute" — which directly contradicts anyone wanting to submit a PR.

What I've done

I wrote a complete rewrite from scratch based on the functionality described in the README:

• Modular Python package under src/gmail_creator/ — 12 modules with clear responsibilities (browser, anti-detection, phone verification, config, stats, etc.)
• Proper config isolation — sensitive data is no longer tracked; supports both file-based and .env-based configuration
• Testing and linting — pytest suite, ruff config, type hints everywhere
• CI pipeline — GitHub Actions for lint + test on push/PR
• Documentation — CONTRIBUTING.md, CHANGELOG.md, issue/PR templates
• MIT license — so people can actually contribute

Full fork here: https://github.com/sandikodev/gmail-account-creator

What I'm proposing

I'd like to open a PR to replace the compiled binary with the Python source. I understand there might be personal or strategic reasons for shipping a binary (obfuscation, distribution, etc.), so I'm open to discussion:

• If there's a specific concern about exposing the logic, we could keep the binary as the primary download but also have the source available for audit/contribution
• If you want to continue with a binary-only approach, at least fixing the credential leak and adding a .gitignore would be a quick win

Either way, happy to help however it's most useful. Let me know what you think.

[sandikodev]

Quick update: I've finished setting up the full CI/CD pipeline on my fork — lint, test, build to binary, and auto-release on tag are all verified working. The release v2.0.1 is live with Windows and Linux binaries. No rush on your side, just wanted to share the progress. Happy to open a PR whenever you're ready, or we can start with smaller changes if that's more comfortable. Let me know what works best for you.

[Justcodax]

Thank you for raising the issue, I noticed the existing problems recently and also developing an alteranative to it as well. There is a lack of transparency in the project of which cannot be blamed consider the creator is trying to embody. My best approach would be create a completely new and separate repo. Can you make it public and I and others will contribute.

[nnWhisperer]

Nice work, I think you should open issues on it @sandikodev . Have you tested it? Google I believe has anti-bot measures recaptcha etc, how are you passing it? I've seen no code inside your fork that passes it.

[eldepor]

im getting errors

Error: Failed to fill basic info: Message: no such element: Unable to locate element: {"method":"css
selector","selector":"select#month"}