the whole point of deltachat is that it is reusing an already standardized protocol with existing servers.

i am using element/matrix and i have tried briar. the usability of deltachat and the ease of onboarding beats both of those. briar was especially difficult to get started with and only has a very limited usefulness compared to the others. and matrix is simply very complex and easier to misconfigure.

▲

johnisgood a day ago | parent | next [-]

Briar had trade-offs, for example, it is not available for desktop. I do not have use for Briar, personally. I use the rest, but Briar is worth a mention.

▲

maqp a day ago | parent | prev [-]

A standardized protocol without forward secrecy is worse than standardized protocol with forward secrecy. Just use Signal.

▲

em-bee a day ago | parent [-]

forward secrecy is independent of the transport protocol. it's only dependent on the encryption. messages encrypted with forward secrey can still be sent over SMTP. deltachat devs are working on that.

signal does not use a standardized protocol, and it requires a phone. that's not an alternative. my children have deltachat on their laptop. i can talk to them when i am not at home without needing to give them a phone.

	▲	maqp a day ago \| parent [-]
		>messages encrypted with forward secrey can still be sent over SMTP. deltachat devs are working on that. OTR has had forward secrecy for 21 years. The effin headline stated PGP was a faulty model https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1029179.1029200 Why implement something PGP-like, without forward secrecy, 13 years later, beats my understanding. I mean, 13 years is also the time difference between OTR and PGP. I guess some devs don't read cornerstone papers of the field they supposedly specialize in :)