Then say that. Look, your article reads as a general attack on (encrypted) email. Independent of how it is implemented. You mention "PGP" 7 times: 5 times buri

Then say that. Look, your article reads as a general attack on (encrypted) email. Independent of how it is implemented. You mention "PGP" 7 times: 5 times buried in the last paragraph of the intro, 1 time in a random paragraph on key rotation, and 1 time at the very end, as if your entire post was about PGP specifically. Hell, your title doesn't even mention PGP. You mention "identity" 3 times, "metadata" 5 times, "keys" and "plaintext" 9 times each, "user" 11 times, "messages" 23 times, and the substring "encrypt" a whopping 41 times. IMO that "plaintext" and "PGP" are roughly equal in usage--and that "encrypt" dominates that!--says something far stronger. Here you're here saying "this post is about no PGP" and I'm saying "but you wrote no (encrypted) email". I'm in agreement about PGP. I'd even go a step further and say you could say any encryption scheme on top of or underneath email would be weak. (Filippo's age? Jason's wireguare? $unicorn? etc.) Why? Because of the concerns you enumerated in the post that are fundamental to the way the above RFCs work. --- Think of the numbers and relative scales. x < 0.0001% of email users encrypt using PGP. and LARP. Fine. Attack those users in your blog posts and comments. But y >>> x of emails users play some part in replacing email in the grand scheme of things, with a more secure alternatives. The expected impact of writing a blog post and convincing ~nobody to quit using PGP is much, much smaller than writing a block post and convincing someone to start consider building, investing in, or supporting others to build that replacement. And IMO, you're 99% of the way to the latter, and 80% of the way to the former.