3 ms·

I generally agree with that article. Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. When using centralized email servers, you have a si

I generally agree with that article. Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers (be they personal or organizational, centralized or close to their users). But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency (cf. Lavabit). There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home.

dllthomas 10y ago
> Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. For certain definitions of "should", I entirely agree. > There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home. Tragically, I don't think that's really the case. The most important feature for email is that you can expect the messages you send to be received by other parties. Approaches many have taken to fighting spam make that difficult or impossible if you are not a large entity. > When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. A "single point of subpoenaing" is precisely the point, for the relevant transparency laws. > However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers I whole-heartedly agree with this. > But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency Any email service will do this, if people send you mail already encrypted. Of course you'll still leak some meta-information.

dllthomas 10y ago

> Using "personal" email servers should be the rule, not the exception. For certain definitions of "should", I entirely agree. > There is still the opportunity to build an opensource secure and easy to deploy email server system that end-users could easily install at home. Tragically, I don't think that's really the case. The most important feature for email is that you can expect the messages you send to be received by other parties. Approaches many have taken to fighting spam make that difficult or impossible if you are not a large entity. > When using centralized email servers, you have a single point of spying, subpoenating and hacking. A "single point of subpoenaing" is precisely the point, for the relevant transparency laws. > However, messages should be encrypted, not only the transmission, the messages themselves, and kept encrypted on the servers I whole-heartedly agree with this. > But the only company that did that had to close under pressure of the US government's agency Any email service will do this, if people send you mail already encrypted. Of course you'll still leak some meta-information.