▲ | woodruffw 20 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> i was merely trying to point out that the developers are capable of thinking outside of the box that they started from and that deltachat may develop in a different direction. I mean this kindly: I wish they would think a little bit more inside the box, and converge onto a proven design. (It’s worth noting that your “existing infrastructure” argument is exactly why Signal uses phone numbers. Using existing infrastructure is a great idea, so long as it doesn’t compromise the security expectations any reasonable user has. That isn’t currently true for Delta Chat.) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | em-bee 6 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
exactly why Signal uses phone numbers the reason may be the same, but the effect is entirely different. until recently signal did not allow hiding the phone number, failing my privacy expectations. a public phone number is something entirely different than a public email address. signal is also centralized with its own servers. deltachat works completely without dedicated servers. and emails easily allow multiple accounts. and what are reasonable security expectations? what you and i consider reasonable does not at all match what the general population expects. for most people sending encrypted emails would already be a win. (autocrypt also works with regular email clients, not just deltachat) the goal here is to raise the general use of encryption in messages. if that is not sufficient then deltachat is not the right tool. but i have friends on telegram and whatsapp. getting them to use deltachat would be an improvement. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|