3 ms·
One is messengers. I believe that Signal and similar modern systems (like MLS) do what they do better than PGP, because of forward secrecy. But acknowledging t
by palata 2y ago
One is messengers. I believe that Signal and similar modern systems (like MLS) do what they do better than PGP, because of forward secrecy.
But acknowledging the fact that I receive a lot of emails from a lot of services, it feels like it would be nice if those services had an option to encrypt the emails they send me with PGP. That way my email provider would not have access to their content, right?
- tptacek 2y agoSo the thread model here is transactional emails? Don't modern services solve this problem just by HTTPS-linking back to the service?
- palata 2y ago> Don't modern services solve this problem just by HTTPS-linking back to the service? Not all of them. That's actually a feature in GMail: it will populate your calendar from the information it reads in your confirmation emails, right? I would argue that those modern services that send me a huge HTML-only email that only contains noise and a link to their website are downright annoying. It is very nice to receive a text-only update that contains useful information that I can read offline.