4 ms·

There was a thread I made about ProtonMail v FastMail and this one point came up at the top. However ProtonMail’s inability to support standard clients without

There was a thread I made about ProtonMail v FastMail and this one point came up at the top. However ProtonMail’s inability to support standard clients without an awkward bridge app seems to take edge off it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19372882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19372882

C14L 8y ago
> ProtonMail’s inability to support standard clients without an awkward bridge app Isn't that one of the pros of Protonmail? All the data is encrypted and decrypted on the client. There is no way to have mail apps access the data without a piece of software that handles the encryption.
- kdtsh 8y ago
  I guess it’s just the way you look at it, and maybe even what your priorities are in choosing an email service. To me at least, I’m thoroughly disinterested in an email service which doesn’t implement IMAPS.
  - kevinSuttle 8y ago
    Which ones do?
    - kdtsh 8y ago
      Many I’m sure. Mailbox.org does, and that’s the service I use.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Unless you only send email to yourself, the hole in that idea is that all the recipients have a copy of your email.
  - jeremyjh 8y ago
    So I should store all my bank statements in clear text because my bank has a copy of them too?
- bad_user 8y ago
  No, most of the email you’ll send and receive will be seen unencrypted by ProtonMail’s servers because that’s just how the email protocol works, which means an intelligence agency like the NSA can still see most if not all of your communication. In other words ProtonMail is not actually end-to-end encrypted which makes it snake oil. It’s interesting that this point has to be explained on HN time and time again, as HN’s audience should understand end to end encryption.
mi100hael 8y ago
I run the bridge and it's really a non-issue. It runs in the background without a peep and auto-configures my mail client. Easy.
neilv 8y ago
ProtonMail's bridge program is a bit of a kludge, and their proprietary protocol (rather than seeking IETF standardization) prevents implementing the protocol in the MUA. I'd love to have a privacy-respecting mail hoster, but the ProtonMail bridge program is too unattractive to make the switch. (Which is not to say that IMAP itself isn't a mess, but MUAs have gotten it to work, and we'd like for whatever other protocol we move to instead to also be an open standard.)

C14L 8y ago

> ProtonMail’s inability to support standard clients without an awkward bridge app Isn't that one of the pros of Protonmail? All the data is encrypted and decrypted on the client. There is no way to have mail apps access the data without a piece of software that handles the encryption.

kdtsh 8y ago
I guess it’s just the way you look at it, and maybe even what your priorities are in choosing an email service. To me at least, I’m thoroughly disinterested in an email service which doesn’t implement IMAPS.
- kevinSuttle 8y ago
  Which ones do?
  - kdtsh 8y ago
    Many I’m sure. Mailbox.org does, and that’s the service I use.
ams6110 8y ago
Unless you only send email to yourself, the hole in that idea is that all the recipients have a copy of your email.
- jeremyjh 8y ago
  So I should store all my bank statements in clear text because my bank has a copy of them too?
bad_user 8y ago
No, most of the email you’ll send and receive will be seen unencrypted by ProtonMail’s servers because that’s just how the email protocol works, which means an intelligence agency like the NSA can still see most if not all of your communication. In other words ProtonMail is not actually end-to-end encrypted which makes it snake oil. It’s interesting that this point has to be explained on HN time and time again, as HN’s audience should understand end to end encryption.

mi100hael 8y ago

I run the bridge and it's really a non-issue. It runs in the background without a peep and auto-configures my mail client. Easy.

neilv 8y ago

ProtonMail's bridge program is a bit of a kludge, and their proprietary protocol (rather than seeking IETF standardization) prevents implementing the protocol in the MUA. I'd love to have a privacy-respecting mail hoster, but the ProtonMail bridge program is too unattractive to make the switch. (Which is not to say that IMAP itself isn't a mess, but MUAs have gotten it to work, and we'd like for whatever other protocol we move to instead to also be an open standard.)