[HN Gopher] Delta Chat - Email Based PGP Encrypted Chat
___________________________________________________________________
Delta Chat - Email Based PGP Encrypted Chat
Author : yamrzou
Score : 140 points
Date : 2025-03-05 03:50 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (delta.chat)
(TXT) w3m dump (delta.chat)
| rapnie wrote:
| The landing page may be a bit too minimal in giving overview of
| this cool project. I really liked the direction towards real-time
| P2P networking, based on Iroh [0]. See the blog post about this
| [1].
|
| > After almost two years of collaboration with the wonderful Iroh
| team, and years of discussions with numerous experts in the
| decentralization space, we are happy to announce that Delta Chat
| 1.48 apps on all platforms contain state-of-the-art Peer-to-Peer
| networking support, including hole punching and forward-secret
| end-to-end encryption. Concretely, Delta Chat now establishes
| private Peer-to-Peer gossipping networks between users who start
| a webxdc app that uses the new joinRealtimeChannel() API.
|
| [0] https://iroh.computer/
|
| [1] https://delta.chat/en/2024-11-20-webxdc-realtime
| philips wrote:
| My first question on this sort of thing was how well does it work
| with GMail. And they have an FAQ entry on it:
| https://providers.delta.chat/gmail
| hobo_mark wrote:
| Would love to know if someone actually runs it reliably.
| Especially with a Workspace email address.
| meitham wrote:
| The whole purpose of using a distributed IM like Delta Chat is
| to break free from big data leeches like Google. If you're just
| using Delta Chat with a centralized Gmail server as the
| backend, doesn't that defeat the point?
| em-bee wrote:
| at one point that used to be how email worked too. for me the
| point of using deltachat is that it works with my existing
| service and that it does not depend on any particular
| company/service. issues with google are secondary. deltachat
| is still useful even with gmail.
| robjan wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you would be quickly rate limited, especially
| if you participate in a few large group chats.
| bondant wrote:
| Does it means the delta chat messages appears in the regular mail
| inbox?
| zevon wrote:
| It's configurable. As per their FAQ:
|
| https://delta.chat/en/help#why-can-i-choose-not-to-watch-the...
|
| https://delta.chat/en/help#why-can-i-choose-to-only-watch-th...
| rahen wrote:
| On the positive side, the use of P2P and IMAP makes censorship
| difficult, which is a strong advantage in authoritarian regimes.
|
| However this comes with serious trade-offs. PGP lacks forward
| secrecy: if a key leaks, all past messages can be decrypted. Also
| IMAP offers no metadata privacy, anyone can see who you email and
| how often.
|
| Signal and WhatsApp are likely a step ahead in terms of privacy
| with their double ratchet encryption
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Ratchet_Algorithm).
| miroljub wrote:
| > Signal and WhatsApp are likely a step ahead in terms of
| privacy
|
| WhatsApp is closed source, so whatever they claim to can't be
| proven. And remember that both WhatsApp and Signal are legally
| required not to disclose to you whether they are spying on you
| or not.
| miki123211 wrote:
| > WhatsApp is closed source, so whatever they claim to can't
| be proven
|
| E2E only requires a correctly-designed client, not a
| correctly-designed server.
|
| Since any binary can always be deobfuscated, deliberately
| putting in a backdoor in the client would be an extremely
| risky PR move, especially in an app as big as WhatsApp, and
| one surely receiving lots of attention from security
| researchers.
|
| Not to mention that OpenWhisperSystems (the creators of
| Signal) worked with Meta on their E2E implementation, and if
| you don't trust them to do right, you shouldn't trust
| anybody.
|
| Let's face it, people over here just don't like Meta and love
| to spread FUD about them.
| miroljub wrote:
| One trust is lost, it's hard to regain it. The fact is, the
| WhatsApp client is not open source, there are no
| reproducible builds, and only thing you have is trust in
| them.
|
| If you live in an authoritarian state with a track record
| of spying on individual citizens, and without legal
| protection for the privacy of foreign citizens, it's
| legitimate to decide not to trust a company like Meta
| headquartered in the USA.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| I love this optimism, I really do. But to believe that any
| meta product can be private is to believe that Zuck
| actually wants that to happen. Zuck, the guy who changes
| company culture every 4 years or less to suit whoever is on
| the white house. The reality is that with a closed source
| product, you can't trust ANYTHING. Just because
| OpenWhisperSystems worked with Meta doesn't mean anything.
| Meta will easily silence them legally if they wanted to.
| And Meta can always remove or disable the implementation as
| they see fit.
| ekianjo wrote:
| So you trust without proof. That's nice.
| balamatom wrote:
| >Let's face it, people over here just don't like Meta and
| love to spread FUD about them.
|
| It's called punching upwards.
|
| >Since any binary can always be deobfuscated, deliberately
| putting in a backdoor in the client would be an extremely
| risky PR move, especially in an app as big as WhatsApp, and
| one surely receiving lots of attention from security
| researchers
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a proprietary delivery
| mechanism such as the App or Play stores deliver a
| backdoored build to an individual device, then later
| autoupdate it to a clean one?
| thecrash wrote:
| Builds are signed by the software publisher, not the Play
| Store. So the store alone couldn't corrupt releases, it
| would need collaboration by the publisher. (Google does
| have a service for app developers where they keep and
| manage your signing keys for you, but it's not required)
| Y_Y wrote:
| > Since any binary can always be deobfuscated
|
| Are you talking about decompilation? This, is in general
| very difficult, and that's when the author and compiler
| don't want to stop you from doing it.
|
| Go fire up jadx or ghidra or whatever you like and see if
| you can find the bits of code you know are there. Now try
| demonstrating that a bit of code _isn 't_ there.
| AAAAaccountAAAA wrote:
| What would be the consequences, if Meta was caught doing
| something "funny" with e2ee? Maybe small fines, and a brief
| online moral panic, but I don't think people would switch
| to another app en masse solely because of that.
| tcfhgj wrote:
| > Let's face it, people over here just don't like Meta and
| love to spread FUD about them.
|
| Yep, don't like it. They already have proven to not be
| trustworthy by various privacy scandals in the past
| mubou wrote:
| > if a key leaks, all past messages can be decrypted
|
| Not to mention, if you revoke a key (maybe because you lost
| your laptop and want to be proactive about security), without
| any authenticated timestamping service in the mix, all past
| messages and signatures can no longer be trusted, regardless of
| the revocation date. That's why when you revoke a key on
| github, all your previous commits' signatures turn red.
|
| I've never understood why no one's succeeded in doing anything
| about this after all these years.
| darthrupert wrote:
| WhatsApp obviously cannot be trusted for message privacy for
| the simple reason that Meta paid gazillion bucks for it. I
| don't understand why people need more evidence beyond that.
| fdb345 wrote:
| the cant read your messages. thats the usp of using signal
| encryption
|
| its the rest of the account and metadata that is at risk
| HelloUsername wrote:
| Previous discussions:
|
| 24-jan-2021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25893626 148
| comments
|
| 07-jan-2021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25674894 4
| commments
|
| 27-feb-2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19263357 11
| comments
|
| 21-feb-2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216827 56
| comments
|
| 03-feb-2017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13560279 1
| comment
| Mulderns wrote:
| There was a few talks about Delta Chat in FOSDEM'25. Seems it has
| come a long way since inception.
|
| https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-5853-delt...
|
| https://fosdem.org/2025/schedule/event/fosdem-2025-5217-chat...
| miroljub wrote:
| I tried to use it, liked the concept, but the way it handles
| email is a mess, making it unusable for my use case of trying to
| use it as an alternative mail client for my normal mail account.
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| "I used a hammer to make orange juice and it made a mess!
| Unusable!"
| n_plus_1_acc wrote:
| I tried it a couple years ago and it sorted everything neatly
| into a Deltachat folder. But a friend of mine also complained
| abut too many mails
| miroljub wrote:
| The issue is, if an email is sent to one of my aliases,
| instead of seeing one conversation between the sender and a
| recipient (my alias) every message creates a new group chat
| with the sender, my main account and my alias as members. For
| every single mail, even when all members are the same, a new
| group is created. When I reply in that group, then the email
| will be sent to all group members, including the original
| sender, and my alias. And sender would always be the main
| account.
|
| This is a known Delta chat issue, but they deem it too niche
| to consider properly supporting aliases.
|
| In an ideal world, when an email arrives, it should create a
| conversation between a sender and a recipient (alias) without
| adding a main account as a member. Sending a new message in
| that conversation will automatically use an alias as a
| sender. For new chats/conversations, I should be able to
| choose which alias to use.
|
| Then I would be able to use it as a chat UI for my mail
| messages.
| em-bee wrote:
| a long time ago i envisioned that mail clients should
| really display mails as a conversation just like you
| describe. a list with all my contacts. and opening the
| contact gives me all emails received and sent with that
| contact.
|
| if you want to use different aliases in deltachat, i think
| the best option for now is to create different deltachat
| profiles for each. you can have multiple profiles active at
| once and you get notifications for all of them, you only
| have to switch profiles to see all the messages. switching
| profiles is a single click and feels like switching folders
| in traditional mail clients.
| bluebarbet wrote:
| Several years ago I tried DeltaChat and it caused an
| insurmountable problem: my mail provider kept locking me out of
| my account. Almost certainly it was because DeltaChat's
| suspiciously ciphertext-filled messages were triggering the abuse
| lockdown.
|
| The provider was GMX and it was their fault, not DeltaChat's. But
| I had to call off the experiment.
| josephb wrote:
| > The provider was GMX and it was their fault, not DeltaChat's.
|
| Noting that the team have put together "Chatmail" a minimal
| email suite designed for speed, security and convenience.
|
| Also helps with the whole "onboarding to chat" and multiple
| identities not linked to existing accounts.
|
| https://delta.chat/en/chatmail
|
| There are multiple public servers which may be an option,
| instead of using an existing email account at provider X.
| sras-me wrote:
| In a sensible world, we would be using this, instead of whatsapp.
| It is amazing that even really a vast majority of, even technical
| people, not once stopped and looked at whatsapp, and said "Wait,
| e-mail can do this, we just need a pretty UI".
| mab122 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
| drpossum wrote:
| To say nothing of the fact that most people are not running
| their own email servers so that messaging is going to reside in
| places they don't own and the fact that relays get to read
| about everything exacerbating that problem, so you cannot
| really expect forward secrecy:
|
| Does this solve _all the other problems_ with encrypted email,
| which is not widely used for a reason?
|
| Here's a discussion
|
| https://www.latacora.com/blog/2020/02/19/stop-using-encrypte...
| lxgr wrote:
| > most people are not running their own email servers
|
| I honestly don't care about what the people I communicate
| with do, as long as I have the capability to at least own my
| persistent identifier (i.e. my TLD).
|
| Just having that capability exerts just the right type of
| pressure on large service providers to maintain a baseline
| quality of service, regardless of whether the majority
| actually makes use of it or not, just like phone number
| portability has done in that domain.
| wink wrote:
| From the website:
|
| > Reliable instant messaging
|
| If it's based on e-mail, it's just not. (if we assume generally
| close-to-realtime delivery and not being blocked by random
| recipients)
| foul wrote:
| Email is a communication system with a lot of moving parts.
| You can't have reliable IM through existing MX servers but
| you may have it if for example SMTPs are running on your
| machine and you poll their data more (it's just an example,
| _I know_ that with an SMTP running on your phone you 'd have
| more problems).
| hkt wrote:
| See earlier on today's front page, another all in one mail
| server. It is much, much simpler than it was to do this.
| I've been self hosting email for nearly 20 years and the
| state of the art is considerably better now. Latency is
| virtually nonexistent and federation works.
| jasode wrote:
| _> It is amazing that even really a vast majority of, even
| technical people, not once stopped and looked at whatsapp, and
| said "Wait, e-mail can do this, we just need a pretty UI"._
|
| WhatsApp lets people find each other with _phone numbers_
| instead email addresses. This has a profound difference in
| _real-world usability_ because it _decreases friction_.
|
| Before WhatsApp, people texted each other using cell companies'
| SMS service.
|
| Why did Person A (who already had an email address) send a SMS
| text to Person B (who also already had an email address) to
| chat?!? Because both people already had each others' _phone
| number_ in their smartphone 's address books. Recording each
| other's email address is less likely so it won't be used as
| "ids" to chat -- especially between friends & family.
|
| To wit, my mother has already _memorized my brand new phone
| number_ that I 've only had for a few years but she doesn't
| know my email address at all even though I've sent it and re-
| sent it to her multiple times. To normal people, the _phone
| numbers are more sacred_ than email addresses. WhatsApp was a
| continuation of the conveniences of SMS -- without paying 10
| cents per message to the mobile phone carriers.
|
| Friction from cognitive overhead is a big deal in technology
| adoption.
| wisienkas wrote:
| I mean you could simply setup a registry of Aliases for
| emails to achieve the same effect?
|
| On the same note, isn't phone numbers being more sensitive
| information than email nowadays, hence you might not want to
| share it.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| That ship seems to have largely sailed and the trend will
| be hard to reverse given how cell number has started to
| become all-purpose ID number tracker.
| sras-me wrote:
| >both people already had each others' phone number in their
| smartphone's address book...
|
| Look if it is saved in the smartphone's address book, why
| does it matter if it is email or a phone number. I bet that
| people don't actually memorize even the phone numbers of
| people close to them these days.
|
| >Why did Person A (who already had an email address) send a
| SMS text to Person B (who also already had an email address)
| to chat?!?
|
| I think it is because we didn't have near universal internet
| access in smartphones for a long time. If Whatsapp (or
| something like that) was a little bit late to appear, and the
| tech crowd was actually a bit more smarter, things like Delta
| Chat had a much better chance to be in Whatsapps current
| place.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Look if it is saved in the smartphone's address book,
| why does it matter if it is email or a phone number. _
|
| Because when people interact with each other in informal
| situations, it's the phone numbers that are shared. Not
| email addresses. Thus, email addresses are often not in the
| Contacts app at all.
| lxgr wrote:
| > Why did Person A (who already had an email address) send a
| SMS text to Person B (who also already had an email address)
| to chat?!?
|
| Arguably primarily because they want to chat with them and
| not email them. The two have vastly different UX beyond just
| contact discovery.
|
| Before WhatsApp there were ICQ (also number-based!), MSN,
| Skype... WhatsApp's main contribution over these was indeed
| using phone numbers and contacts access for automated contact
| discovery, but I don't think it makes sense at all to
| characterize it as a usability improvement on email.
|
| Another case in point: iMessage supports email addresses as
| identifiers too. I don't even have my phone number on there
| because I consider it a strictly inferior identifier (it
| changes every time I move countries, I lose it if payments to
| my operator ever lapse, unlike a TLD I have no way of owning
| it independently from a phone plan etc.)
| jasode wrote:
| _> but I don't think it makes sense at all to characterize
| it as a usability improvement on email._
|
| Chats in general (not WhatsApp specifically) have "better"
| usability than email for some people because:
|
| + chats skipp the extra keystrokes of email workflow such
| as "Compose new email" and then enter an extra "Subject:"
| line which makes normal people put useless things in there
| such as _" a quick question..."_ and then put the real
| conversation in the email body. It's a bunch of extra
| friction for no reason when communicating informally
| between friends & family.
|
| + chat ids such as phone numbers are not given out as
| freely as email addresses which makes chats have less spam
| and clutter and more easily isolated to personal
| communications. Email inboxes are clogged up with a bunch
| of non-chat mails like shipment notifications from Amazon.
|
| I actually prefer email comms and have told my family to
| send me emails instead of text chats because I'm always at
| my desk and can use my full keyboard to type out a reply --
| but -- they ignore me and always just send text chats.
| Normal people have a mental model that's geared toward text
| chats.
|
| E.g. I saw my aunt again 30 years after she last saw me and
| one of the first things she asked was _" What's your phone
| #? I want to send you a photo when you were little."_ And
| because I received her text, _I now have my aunt 's phone #
| in my Contacts app_. But I don't have her email address.
| She never gave it to me; and I never asked for it.
|
| _Exchanging phone #s is the natural thing to do between
| friends & family._ On the other hand, exchanging emails is
| often more natural when interacting in business settings or
| dealing with people at arms length.
| lxgr wrote:
| > Chats in general (not WhatsApp specifically) have
| "better" usability than email
|
| Definitely, but that's not WhatsApp's innovation.
| fdb345 wrote:
| just give them your signal number and use signal desktop
|
| i do the same as you as i dont carry a phone anymore
| (fucking with the police).
| darthrupert wrote:
| Email address is a *far* better identifier than a random
| string of numbers though. The only reason why phone number
| discoverability works better is because everyone keeps being
| in that ancient world.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I mean... WhatsApp is literally XMPP / Jabber... It's amazing
| that we didn't stop and said, wait, Jabber can do this, we just
| need a pretty UI...
|
| Hell, Jabber can still do this. I'm not convinced of the other
| modern alternatives that don't have half the functional
| capabilities that Jabber do.
|
| The only "downside" of Jabber is that it's XML based, but
| really if you think about it, that's a strength. Anyone here
| could probably parse the protocol effortlessly. There's also
| lots of fully functional clients out today, and servers that
| scale like nobody's business.
|
| I'm more ashamed we don't invest more into XMPP: Google Talk,
| Facebook Chat and WhatsApp were built around it. These are
| companies with insane to scale userbases, tried and tested.
|
| Here's a 2008 article from Facebook on using their chat with a
| Jabber client:
|
| https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/110/
| thiht wrote:
| > it's XML based, but really if you think about it, that's a
| strength
|
| Nope.
|
| Another downside is the X. The protocol being extensible
| means that no two clients implement the same subset of
| extensions making it useless. I've been scolded in the past
| for using the "wrong" client, making my messages look weird
| for people using the "right" client. Just make a good
| protocol.
| fsflover wrote:
| > "Wait, e-mail can do this, we just need a pretty UI"
|
| This reminds me on this nice comment thread:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19217818
| em-bee wrote:
| i have been arguing this ever since ICQ became popular. back
| then i got a lot of angry reactions. i already explained it
| here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38029579
|
| that generic server backend that i am describing in my linked
| comment is something i am using here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42159045
| lxgr wrote:
| No, if anything we'd be using XMPP or Matrix.
|
| Email is the completely wrong protocol choice for _instant_
| messaging. It 's just a completely different use case. You
| wouldn't send a letter to the fire department if your house is
| on fire either.
| immibis wrote:
| Only because we choose it to be.
|
| When you use XMPP or Matrix you know your message will be
| delivered instantly. When you use email you don't. But that's
| only because we haven't defined an extension that tells the
| client whether the server can deliver messages instantly.
| It's not really that inherent to the system. Surely you've
| had at least one real-time conversation by email because both
| of you happened to be online at the same time and nothing
| went wrong necessitating a message delay.
| lxgr wrote:
| Yes, it's theoretically possible to adapt many protocols to
| many use cases, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
| Email and XMPP are just geared towards very different use
| cases.
|
| In particular, Email has a lot of assumptions about
| acceptable delivery delays, bidirectional
| (non-)reachability etc. baked in that would be very hard to
| globally undo.
| immibis wrote:
| As programmers, is it not our natural instinct to create
| a ChatSystem and MailSystem on top of a
| GenericMessageDeliverySystem? When did we stop doing
| that? Creating a brand new GenericMessageDeliverySystem
| for each purpose comes with substantial costs. We don't
| reinvent the Internet to create WhatsApp.
| lxgr wrote:
| What generic message delivery system are you talking
| about, though?
|
| SMTP is optimized for the use case of email; XMPP is
| optimized for one-to-one instant messaging; Matrix is
| optimized for "Slack-like" chat.
|
| I highly doubt that these three use cases are similar
| enough to warrant introducing an additional common
| protocol/layer.
| tweetle_beetle wrote:
| I think the point is that it builds on existing
| infrastructure that almost everyone already has in their
| life. Whether you self-host, use a niche provider, or a
| mainstream provider, email provides a pretty interoperable
| starting point which isn't a walled garden and doesn't have
| to be owned by FAANG.
|
| Are there some compromises? Of course. But creating new
| accounts, or using new services isn't one of them. Email-
| speed instant messaging is good enough for me.
|
| And to be honest, as much as I like Matrix, it has plenty of
| compromise of its own - including speed/reliability when
| using their own servers.
| meitham wrote:
| For those unaware, this was created by Holger Krekel, the brain
| behind pypy and pytest! Another great product.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| didn't knew that!
|
| Even though I am part of this secure messaging group chat on
| matrix thing and I had even created a whole tierlist of
| security of protocols etc. and saw delta chat & have it running
| and fiddled with it.
|
| The fact that it is written by creator of pypy is wholesome!!
| alberth wrote:
| Reminds me of Topicbox (by Fastmail).
|
| https://www.topicbox.com/
| chuckadams wrote:
| Ah the famously friendly UX of PGP combined with the solid
| reliability of email. This is trying to get two drunks to stand
| up straight by leaning them against each other.
| lopsidedgrin wrote:
| > This is trying to get two drunks to stand up straight by
| leaning them against each other.
|
| Thank you for painting this beautiful picture.
| hkt wrote:
| They've actually cracked PGP, and email is fine, especially
| between self hosters and anyone using chatmail. I've been using
| it for years: Delta really, really works.
| bo1024 wrote:
| Can you clarify "cracked"?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| PGP has been cracked when you use it with automation in
| that you can steal keys slowly by relying on the meta-
| behavior of systems around PGP. A classic attack here is
| timing how long it takes for a PGP-based automated system
| to reject your messages.
|
| PGP is intended for the classic "used by a human to encrypt
| emails manually" flow and is actually insecure if you
| automate around it.
| dingnuts wrote:
| the timing attack you're describing is extremely common
| -- not unique to PGP -- and simple to mitigate. do you
| have more literature about the attack, or attacks, that
| you're describing?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Very secure, too. You get all the insecurity of automated use
| of PGP combined with the insecurity of using email protocols.
| immibis wrote:
| Presumably they have chosen and standardized a particular
| subset of PGP for their product, making it fully reliable and
| user-friendly.
| usr1106 wrote:
| Have you used it?
| INTPenis wrote:
| I wish I could send a one-time link to my father where we could
| play chess against each other by re-visiting the same link.
|
| The e-mail part made me think of this. I have no use for an
| e-mail based chat but an online chess game that's easy to use
| without registration would be cool. He's 82 and he can't use
| complex sites.
| lxgr wrote:
| > an online chess game that's easy to use without registration
| would be cool
|
| Lichess lets you play without registration, I believe (or at
| least one player; not sure if both sides can be anonymous).
| em-bee wrote:
| well then deltachat is exactly what you want because it
| supports webxdc apps which can run in the deltachat client.
| here is the chess app: https://webxdc.org/apps/#arcanecircle-
| chess
| fdb345 wrote:
| The most important factor with email, is that your inbox is
| encrypted at rest at all times... and cannot be bruteforced.
|
| The chances of your email messages being 'man in the middled' are
| almost non-existent. Its a micro-percent of live investigations
| that does this.
|
| The police RELY ON finding messages in either your inbox or the
| recipients. It doesnt matter if they are encrypted or not in
| reality. Of course they'd like to read them and if they are this
| deep into you. Its likely they still will (probably from the
| recipients lesser password hygiene than yours).
|
| Almost no evidence is every 'plucked' out of the air and read. It
| just doesnt work that way.
|
| However, software like Delta is better than nothing esp for
| normies. Its just limited in use for people who really need ways
| to frustrate LE.
|
| Source: Ive been under NCA and FBI investigation before.
| Protonmail with the two password method stopped them every time.
| Memorise the 2nd password and password manager the first.
| tredre3 wrote:
| > Ive been under NCA and FBI investigation before. Protonmail
| with the two password method stopped them every time. Memorise
| the 2nd password and password manager the first.
|
| Unless you exclusively use proton-bridge and disabled auto-
| update, then proton controls all endpoints in which your
| passwords live.
|
| So what is preventing the FBI from forcing Proton to serve a
| special UI just to you that will be used to exfiltrate your
| second password?
| adiabatichottub wrote:
| In the US you might be able to argue it amounts to "compelled
| speech", and is unconstitutional.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d.
| ..
| 7bit wrote:
| You have? Why?
| aslandb wrote:
| would be nice if all the "no, no, this can't work! email is slow!
| blah blah" guys once and for all actually give it a try to the
| app and realize IT WORKS AND IT IS BLAZING FAST! I have been
| using it since years with my family and some friends without any
| problems, it is the best I could find after trying Matrix, XMPP,
| etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-05 23:02 UTC)