> If you have E2EE but then one the two ends can be substituted for a new one, does it really qualifies as E2EE? it's not only two ends, but as many ends as th

> If you have E2EE but then one the two ends can be substituted for a new one, does it really qualifies as E2EE? it's not only two ends, but as many ends as there are people belonging to a conversation. And yes, replacing or adding one device for one end with a device that belongs to the "end", still qualifies e2ee. > If I have a hard requirement on E2EE, it probably means I don't want encrypted messages stored forever on remote servers, and easily decrypted on new devices. "probably" it doesn't mean that. It means that no one except the (intended) ends (all legitimate people in the conversation respectively their devices) can read my messages. > Where did I imply that? I just gave you an example use case that is generally not tagged as E2EE but where no one but you and your contact can read your messages (self hosting). I don't know why we are talking about this. It requires everyone to self host btw. Not realistic. > But again, if you plan to store messages forever, you increase the chance of it being read by third parties significantly. True, but I think that should be a choice of the user. Don't want to have slightly increased risk? Delete the messages. For all devices (you are still storing them forever if you only do that for one device). Perhaps even delete automatically after some time after arrival/viewing the message.