3 ms·
> The article completely fails to note the harsh compromises that must be made if you want to further encrypt messages with PGP or S/MIME or whatever. For most
by iggldiggl 5y ago
> The article completely fails to note the harsh compromises that must be made if you want to further encrypt messages with PGP or S/MIME or whatever. For most people, the most obvious one is that any form of webmail is crippled and you lose all server-side search, meaning that you need to fetch all the mail locally and index it locally. This is normally infeasible for phones.
Server-side (spam-)filtering would be another victim. (Okay, so in my case my personal filters mostly operate only on the From:/To:/... headers and so wouldn't be affected, but the effectiveness of spam filtering would definitively be reduced somewhat if the spam filter didn't have access to the message text as well.)
- upofadown 5y agoNon-anonymous encrypted emails are signed. So anonymous emails from people you don't know could be treated with great suspicion. In practice, widespread email encryption would be an almost complete solution to spam.
- iggldiggl 5y agoWhat's to stop spammers from just making up identities? "people you don't know" would would work for whitelisting (i.e. people I don't know wouldn't get whitelisted), but as I need and want to receive the occasional email from random strangers, it's not all that useful a criterion for marking something as certainly spam.
- upofadown 5y ago>it's not all that useful a criterion for marking something as certainly spam. Which is why you would only mark it as probably spam.