3 ms·
The bikeshedding here came from a fundamental disagreement about usability. It really could not be helped. Some wanted the email client to automatically detect
by upofadown 4y ago
The bikeshedding here came from a fundamental disagreement about usability. It really could not be helped. Some wanted the email client to automatically detect a situation where encrypted email was possible. Others felt that the risk of a user unknowingly sending a CC unencrypted was too high.
Part of this ended up coming from the fact that Thunderbird was not clearly showing the user that the email to a particular recipient was or was not going to be sent encrypted. I am not clear from skimming the discussion that this fundamental issue has yet been fixed.
- psychphysic 4y agoIt would have been better to implement and then rachet up use. Just like happened with HTTPS. At the start not many noticed or cared if their connection was encrypted. Then companies started directing people to the encrypted site and pointing out the padlock icon browsers adopted. Now we're getting to the point that browser's might fuss about unencrypted connections. Same could have been done but they got caught up in well if we have any encryption. It should all be encrypted false dichotomy. Or am I just adding to the bike shedding?
- kebman 4y agoThe discussion is essentially about whether you want to lull people into a false sense of security by encrypting some e-mails, or having people self-censor because they know that all e-mails are sent in the open. As it is, encrypting some of the correspondence will only deter those third parties who give up early. Meanwhile any larger organization, such as a state actor, will still be able to easily read your correspondence even with such an "encryption" scheme.