feat(Proton Mail): Add Remove free accounts limit patch

[ByteEVM]

This patch lifts the max "Free" accounts restriction in Proton Mail (by default, the limit is 2 accounts).

Working as of Proton Mail 4.10.0

Closes #4965

[hoo-dles]

Is the limit removed if the XML node is deleted? Or maybe set to 0 or -1? I can't really think of any use cases where a user would want to increase the account limit vs removing it all together.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

I'm surprised so much stuff is in XML constants.

So, there is no a limit of how many free accounts a user can have? The limit is only on how many accounts can be logged in simultaneously?

Maybe name this Remove login limit or something similar to convey it's login related and not a limit on the accounts per se.

[LisoUseInAIKyrios]

Deleting the XML entry will probably cause a crash. Maybe set it absurdly high like 100.

[ByteEVM]

I'm surprised so much stuff is in XML constants.

So, there is no a limit of how many free accounts a user can have? The limit is only on how many accounts can be logged in simultaneously?

Maybe name this Remove login limit or something similar to convey it's login related and not a limit on the accounts per se.

There's no login restriction if the account has a Paid subscription, so this limit is just for "free" accounts.

They mention having multiple accounts as an "Unauthorized" activity in their Terms of Service section 2.7:

Having multiple free Accounts (e.g. creating bulk signups, creating and/or operating a large number of free Accounts for a single organization or individual);

However, their terms don't set an explicit limit for what they deem a "large number" — and they mention if the usage isn't fraudulent, there is nothing to worry about.

spam "approvals" are not needed

[Nuckyz]

A patch for changing the max limit seems a bit strange. Ideally this patch should simply remove the limit by using the integer max value or use a bytecode patch to noop where the limit is checked. In my opinion a bytecode patch should be considered because the app is not obfuscated and very easy to fingerprint the required method.

[scrazzz]

I feel like this is a better approach

[ByteEVM]

@scrazzz I have applied your suggestions along renaming to new references.

[ByteEVM]

@oSumAtrIX Renaming has been applied globally

[welcome]

Thank you for contributing to ReVanced. Join us on Discord to receive a role for your contribution.