3 ms·

I might have been unclear, I mean what OP is positing under that headline in the article is true. So, the e-mail leaking it part. If you read my whole comment

• kbenson 7y ago
  Sure, I just think it's worth noting again and calling out explicitly, given that there's a lot of assertions that are being made, but some are only accurate in some use cases. It's either a lack of understanding on the author's side, or a rhetoric tactic that I have little respect for. In either case I think it deserves attention. To some degree, it's not even the threat model which is different, but people's entire use, which of course might change the threat model. The article is treating email as if it's the same as messaging, which it emphatically is not. Email is also the de-facto method of exchanging file for certain types of people (even if it's always been somewhat poor at it), or providing explicit information that should stay around to individuals that isn't desired to be on a website. Email has always been somewhat poor at the use case of instant messaging, but that's okay, it does other things much better than instant messaging (try finding an instant message from ten years ago and migrating it from the service it was on to a new one). Saying that it's not as good as the security models of instant messaging when being used like an instant messager is not a good reason to stop using it entirely. There are other reasons given that are more compelling, but this one seemed to so fundamentally misunderstand what some people use email for that I though it was important to note.