4 ms·
For the privacy, quality, and features it offers at the reasonable price of $50/year, I would say that it's a fantastic alternative. It'd be hard-pressed to fin
by TwelveNights 8y ago
For the privacy, quality, and features it offers at the reasonable price of $50/year, I would say that it's a fantastic alternative. It'd be hard-pressed to find anything free that is on par.
- babayega2 8y agoWell. Since all their servers are US based, talking about privacy like talking about Gmail : none knows what's going behind ...!
- mda 8y agoHow is it better for privacy and quality?
- Riverheart 8y agoPrivacy wise, you're paying for the service so there's a reasonable expectation that they're not mining your emails to build a profile of you. Unlike Google they have no ads to serve you.
- mda 8y agoHow are they mining your emails to build a profile of you? Besides when you use such a service all your personal emails are stored in servers. One rubber stamp away from total ownage.
- epicide 8y ago> all your personal emails are stored in [someone else's] servers. Well, yeah. That's true for everything except for hardware you actually own. They're saying it's better than storing it on Google's servers, not that it's bulletproof. There really isn't a way to have impenetrable email. It's all about what type and level of risks you're willing to take. E.g. are you concerned more about rubber stamps or software exploits? Are you more concerned about usage pattern profiles or someone actually reading the content of your messages? Different people have different priorities and there is no one single best option.