4 ms·

Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that I see myself switching after 15 ye

by Tenoke 5y ago

Would any email provider protect me from this, get my emails actually delivered and ideally work with my own domain? Not that I see myself switching after 15 years and 6 Gmail accounts but if I am to I'd rather know who I'd use. And no I won't risk setting it up myself and risk missing on some portion of my emails like I've had happen at workplaces before we'd sigh and switch to Google. For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email.

soziawa 5y ago
> For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email. Something that doesn't store the chats in a decryptable form on their servers is probably preferrable. So Telegram out and Signal, Threema or WhatsApp in.
- eitland 5y ago
  Friendly reminder that WhatsApp is far out: it uploads all data unencrypted to at least one cloud if on of the participants have backups enabled. So Signal, Matrix or possible Threema (I don't know it) is in. Personally though, I use Telegram and I drive an ordinary car, not an armored one.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    No matter which chat service you use, any recipient could potentially upload the unencrypted data to a cloud backup service. If you don't trust the intended recipients with the data then you shouldn't share it with them in the first place.
    - eitland 5y ago
      Have my upvote. This is a great - and often forgotten I think - point. I guess my point is that in WhatsApp it is so easy to stumble into doing it, and that it sends it directly to the cloud. For clarification: I'm certainly annoyed at Google for a number of reasons, but I don't think their security record is worse than everyone else's. Quite the contrary.
- sorenjan 5y ago
  Telegram supports E2E encrypted secret chats. https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different
  - iknowstuff 5y ago
    Which noone uses. Even Facebook Messenger supports "secret chats". Telegram is not secure.
    - sorenjan 5y ago
      I don't know what kind of usage numbers their secret chats have, but if that's the case maybe that's a sign most people prefer the convenience of non E2E chats to the security of E2E? And if someone is just a tiny bit interested and motivated the secret chats are there if they want them. In fact, I'd argue that it's better to use encrypted chats in a common chat client than having to explain why you use a specific encrypted client if you ever find yourself in a situation where that's necessary, like a border crossing or police interaction.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Except on desktop and on GNU/Linux phones.
- collaborative 5y ago
  A bit of self-promotion, why not: also Collaborative Groups in :-P
ashtonkem 5y ago
The problem with email is that it’s federated; any email is as secure as the least secure mail server it’s being sent from or two. Even if you use something super duper secure in a polity that respects privacy, it does you no good if you send an email to Gmail who immediately hands it over to one or more government bodies.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  There is an obvious solution, do not send emails to gmail addresses.
  - aembleton 5y ago
    ... or to domains that use gmail. Possible to find out using dig but not as simple as avoiding gmail addresses.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Only if the domain uses google's MX as the public facing MX. If it delivers to an intermediate MX for filtering or archiving or ??? and then redelivers to google, it's not visible. Of course, if you don't set the public MX to google, blackberry phones won't use the right SMTP for outgoing mail, and then mail will fail DMARC, because you can't actually configure the SMTP server anyway. Hope they fixed that in BB10, before they stopped selling phones.
      - account42 5y ago
        > If it delivers to an intermediate MX for filtering or archiving or ??? and then redelivers to google, it's not visible. That is a) a very odd and theoretical setup b) probably would cause Google's MX to reject most messages for SPF failures
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        You don’t even need MX trickery to make this an issue; how many people who moved over to Gmail setup forwarding rules from their old email address to Gmail? You’d never be able to tell from the outside that your messages are going to an unsafe location
vifon 5y ago
If you want your email reliably encrypted, encrypt it yourself. GPG works the same regardless of the provider.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Only if you assume that the only valuable thing in your communications is the content, which is simply not true. Metadata, who is speaking to whom and when, is incredibly valuable as a surveillance tool.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  and I guess that using GPG will instantly flag you as suspect :-(
  - fsflover 5y ago
    Please do it. The more "suspects" there are, the better for everyone.
rapnie 5y ago
Would Switzerland need to comply with this regulation? Thinking of e.g. ProtonMail for their EU customers.
- mackrevinack 5y ago
  i don't think they're a part of the EU. don't quote me on that though

by Tenoke 5y ago

soziawa 5y ago

> For Chat tg/signal seem like they would but I am less sure what the best option is for email. Something that doesn't store the chats in a decryptable form on their servers is probably preferrable. So Telegram out and Signal, Threema or WhatsApp in.

eitland 5y ago
Friendly reminder that WhatsApp is far out: it uploads all data unencrypted to at least one cloud if on of the participants have backups enabled. So Signal, Matrix or possible Threema (I don't know it) is in. Personally though, I use Telegram and I drive an ordinary car, not an armored one.
- nybble41 5y ago
  No matter which chat service you use, any recipient could potentially upload the unencrypted data to a cloud backup service. If you don't trust the intended recipients with the data then you shouldn't share it with them in the first place.
  - eitland 5y ago
    Have my upvote. This is a great - and often forgotten I think - point. I guess my point is that in WhatsApp it is so easy to stumble into doing it, and that it sends it directly to the cloud. For clarification: I'm certainly annoyed at Google for a number of reasons, but I don't think their security record is worse than everyone else's. Quite the contrary.
sorenjan 5y ago
Telegram supports E2E encrypted secret chats. https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different https://telegram.org/faq#q-how-are-secret-chats-different
- iknowstuff 5y ago
  Which noone uses. Even Facebook Messenger supports "secret chats". Telegram is not secure.
  - sorenjan 5y ago
    I don't know what kind of usage numbers their secret chats have, but if that's the case maybe that's a sign most people prefer the convenience of non E2E chats to the security of E2E? And if someone is just a tiny bit interested and motivated the secret chats are there if they want them. In fact, I'd argue that it's better to use encrypted chats in a common chat client than having to explain why you use a specific encrypted client if you ever find yourself in a situation where that's necessary, like a border crossing or police interaction.
- fsflover 5y ago
  Except on desktop and on GNU/Linux phones.
collaborative 5y ago
A bit of self-promotion, why not: also Collaborative Groups in :-P

ashtonkem 5y ago

The problem with email is that it’s federated; any email is as secure as the least secure mail server it’s being sent from or two. Even if you use something super duper secure in a polity that respects privacy, it does you no good if you send an email to Gmail who immediately hands it over to one or more government bodies.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
There is an obvious solution, do not send emails to gmail addresses.
- aembleton 5y ago
  ... or to domains that use gmail. Possible to find out using dig but not as simple as avoiding gmail addresses.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Only if the domain uses google's MX as the public facing MX. If it delivers to an intermediate MX for filtering or archiving or ??? and then redelivers to google, it's not visible. Of course, if you don't set the public MX to google, blackberry phones won't use the right SMTP for outgoing mail, and then mail will fail DMARC, because you can't actually configure the SMTP server anyway. Hope they fixed that in BB10, before they stopped selling phones.
    - account42 5y ago
      > If it delivers to an intermediate MX for filtering or archiving or ??? and then redelivers to google, it's not visible. That is a) a very odd and theoretical setup b) probably would cause Google's MX to reject most messages for SPF failures
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        You don’t even need MX trickery to make this an issue; how many people who moved over to Gmail setup forwarding rules from their old email address to Gmail? You’d never be able to tell from the outside that your messages are going to an unsafe location

vifon 5y ago

If you want your email reliably encrypted, encrypt it yourself. GPG works the same regardless of the provider.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Only if you assume that the only valuable thing in your communications is the content, which is simply not true. Metadata, who is speaking to whom and when, is incredibly valuable as a surveillance tool.
wiz21c 5y ago
and I guess that using GPG will instantly flag you as suspect :-(
- fsflover 5y ago
  Please do it. The more "suspects" there are, the better for everyone.

rapnie 5y ago

Would Switzerland need to comply with this regulation? Thinking of e.g. ProtonMail for their EU customers.

mackrevinack 5y ago
i don't think they're a part of the EU. don't quote me on that though