What matters is that feeling that there's a spec and willingness to publish it - so when it'll be necessary it most likely will be there. Existence of a specification doesn't mean that things will be supported forever and are not subject for changes. I still don't see how having API spec with a big fat "everything will break tomorrow, look completely different and may eat your pet hamster - you have been warned" disclaimer is an issue. > because we are phasing out some old APIs we don't want people to use
Why don't you start with the far more fundamental and important standards of SMTP and IMAP, Protonmail? Why don't you open source your desktop & mobile applications or your bridge? What a joke. ProtonMail is now interoperable with practically ANY other past, present, or future email system that supports the OpenPGP standard, and our implementation of this standard is also itself open source. We believe encrypted communications should be open and not a walled garden. Unlike other encrypted communications systems, such as Signal or Telegram, PGP doesn’t belong to anybody, there is no single central server, and you aren’t forced to use one service over another. >PGP, because it is built on top of email, is therefore also a federated encryption system.
Genuinely secure systems do not require you to trust their operators. Their security is also based on trusting ProtonMail, since they could easily siphon off plaintext at the SMTP level or secretly modify their JavaScript to exfiltrate your private keys from the web browser.
They excuse this nonsense by saying that it's necessary for encryption, which is blatantly false. They own your email, they don't support open protocols including SMTP and IMAP and the only way to export your emails is through a proprietary end-user application. I spoke on Mastodon recently about Protonmail - it's a scam and I cannot recommend it to anyone.
0 kommentar(er)
