> This is a post on the Signal blog. I'm not responding to a person who writes the Signal blog. I'm arguing with a silly statement 'but but email doesn't have

> This is a post on the Signal blog. I'm not responding to a person who writes the Signal blog. I'm arguing with a silly statement 'but but email doesn't have e2ee'. Spam problem is big, and can be solved in other federated protocol like XMPP by requirement to authenticate sender before sending a message. > E2E encryption should have forward secrecy. That is an arbitrary requirement imposed by you just now. For many people it absolutely SHOULD NOT have forward secrecy, and a message signed by a public trusted key would be much better. Regarding that 'axolotl ratched', my developers have implemented it on at least 2 platforms, that protocol can absolutely be ported to email. But nobody will do it because in practice nobody really needs it, just some obsessed nerds. > Signal and WhatsApp both exist and people use them, so they obviously aren’t deal-breakers. ... And Telegram CRUSHES them with BY FAR superior user experience precisely because they DON'T have e2ee for regular chats. > It requires you to verify the identity of one, initial contact to bootstrap your social network. No, this is a security theater again. If you need e2ee you should not trust someone else to do a verification work for you. Not your contacts, not a Signal's CA, nobody. Imagine you are a gangster in a sinister organization. All it would take to compromise your communications is just one mole coerced to work with the police. And if you aren't willing to do this work because it is too burdensome, you should honestly face the fact that nobody is interested in your communications, and that your insistence on e2ee does not, in fact, increase your privacy, but just makes you feel more safe.