4 ms·

There are really good, albeit few, alternatives: Fastmail (https://www.fastmail.com/ https://www.fastmail.com/) Tutanota (https://tutanota.com/ https://tutano

There are really good, albeit few, alternatives: Fastmail (https://www.fastmail.com/ https://www.fastmail.com/) Tutanota (https://tutanota.com/ https://tutanota.com/) Riseup (https://help.riseup.net/ https://help.riseup.net/)

Diederich 11y ago
+1 for fastmail. I've been using them for the past few years to host my 'other' main e-mail (the one I've had since 1994) and it's been a delight.
- keehun 11y ago
  +1 for fastmail, here, too. Amazing service, really good communication during rare downtime, contributes heavily to open-source/community, decent prices, can heavily customize filters/etc, and as far as I'm aware, probably the most mainstream email provider that won't give into the NSA.
  - linkregister 11y ago
    I'm sure that Australian Federal Police and Victoria law enforcement would be able to exercise search warrants on Fastmail's servers if they needed to. Since you're in Tennessee (and thus a U.S. Person), you're actually ineligible for collection under FAA 702. Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo, etc. would actually be the safest place for your information. Of course that assumes that you believe the NSA follows U.S. law. If you don't have that assumption, that also implies that the NSA wouldn't respect Australian sovereignty enough to keep it from infiltrating Fastmail's servers. I'm saying this to illustrate that there's no silver bullet for secure transmission and storage of information.
    - NeutronBoy 11y ago
      > I'm sure that Australian Federal Police and Victoria law enforcement would be able to exercise search warrants on Fastmail's servers if they needed to. Nobody is arguing against search warrants. People are concerned about warrantless searches.
      - linkregister 11y ago
        Nobody in this thread mentioned warrants. It appears that all the posters here care about the disclosure of their information, full stop.
    - ecthiender 11y ago
      Checkout Riseup from my above comment. They release warrant canaries regularly.
  - middleclick 11y ago
    I like Fastmail (paying customer here) but let's not kid ourselves that they are anymore safe from the NSA or the Five Eyes. That's wishful thinking and is the same argument as if you host your email in Switzerland, it's magically untouchable from mass surveillance.
    - ecthiender 11y ago
      Checkout Riseup from my above comment. They release warrant canaries regularly. PS: I'm not related to Riseup.
Navarr 11y ago
I would be surprised if Fastmail didn't adopt similar policies. These are good-for-the-user policies.
- brongondwana 11y ago
  We've played with it in the past - it was on beta for a while - but too much legit email would have been marked as invalid. We're not big enough to force something like this through. Google is :) Good for them. I'm 100% in agreement with them on this work, and we'll definitely be doing something similar.
  - Navarr 11y ago
    Google's not particularly marking them invalid though? The not-being-authenticated indicator is just replacing any avatar with a question mark ("we're not sure this person is this person") and a tiny indicator that warns you that outgoing mail is sent in the clear. As long as you're not sending mails to spam for this (which Google doesn't seem to be doing, unless of course a DMARC policy tells them to - I imagine) then I don't see the issue?

Diederich 11y ago

+1 for fastmail. I've been using them for the past few years to host my 'other' main e-mail (the one I've had since 1994) and it's been a delight.

keehun 11y ago
+1 for fastmail, here, too. Amazing service, really good communication during rare downtime, contributes heavily to open-source/community, decent prices, can heavily customize filters/etc, and as far as I'm aware, probably the most mainstream email provider that won't give into the NSA.
- linkregister 11y ago
  I'm sure that Australian Federal Police and Victoria law enforcement would be able to exercise search warrants on Fastmail's servers if they needed to. Since you're in Tennessee (and thus a U.S. Person), you're actually ineligible for collection under FAA 702. Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo, etc. would actually be the safest place for your information. Of course that assumes that you believe the NSA follows U.S. law. If you don't have that assumption, that also implies that the NSA wouldn't respect Australian sovereignty enough to keep it from infiltrating Fastmail's servers. I'm saying this to illustrate that there's no silver bullet for secure transmission and storage of information.
  - NeutronBoy 11y ago
    > I'm sure that Australian Federal Police and Victoria law enforcement would be able to exercise search warrants on Fastmail's servers if they needed to. Nobody is arguing against search warrants. People are concerned about warrantless searches.
    - linkregister 11y ago
      Nobody in this thread mentioned warrants. It appears that all the posters here care about the disclosure of their information, full stop.
  - ecthiender 11y ago
    Checkout Riseup from my above comment. They release warrant canaries regularly.
- middleclick 11y ago
  I like Fastmail (paying customer here) but let's not kid ourselves that they are anymore safe from the NSA or the Five Eyes. That's wishful thinking and is the same argument as if you host your email in Switzerland, it's magically untouchable from mass surveillance.
  - ecthiender 11y ago
    Checkout Riseup from my above comment. They release warrant canaries regularly. PS: I'm not related to Riseup.

Navarr 11y ago

I would be surprised if Fastmail didn't adopt similar policies. These are good-for-the-user policies.

brongondwana 11y ago
We've played with it in the past - it was on beta for a while - but too much legit email would have been marked as invalid. We're not big enough to force something like this through. Google is :) Good for them. I'm 100% in agreement with them on this work, and we'll definitely be doing something similar.
- Navarr 11y ago
  Google's not particularly marking them invalid though? The not-being-authenticated indicator is just replacing any avatar with a question mark ("we're not sure this person is this person") and a tiny indicator that warns you that outgoing mail is sent in the clear. As long as you're not sending mails to spam for this (which Google doesn't seem to be doing, unless of course a DMARC policy tells them to - I imagine) then I don't see the issue?