Regarding @thunderbird, that is applicable to you too. In https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/openpgp-thunderbird-howto-and-faq#w_does-thunderbird-support-autocrypt it is claimed: "Thunderbird does not support the Autocrypt philosophy that encryption should be fully automatic" Well, what is the advantage of an email non-being encrypted, always that the two senders support OpenPGP (and share the public keys) or whatever common encryption method? Of course, if one does not have a public key, I understand it is impossible to make automatic encryption.
Further, I have another question: in the link above claims: 'At this time, Thunderbird doesn't support the "Gossip" feature.'
However, on the Autocrypt webpage, it appears a table where it seems thunderbird supports gossip. (https://docs.autocrypt.org/dev-status.html). Then?
![screenshot of a part of the blog post from Matthew Greene:
So what should we be doing?
Quite a lot actually. The path to a proper encrypted email system isn’t that far off. At minimum, any real solution needs:
[a green verified checkmark on the following paragraph]
« A proper approach to key management. This could be anything from centralized key management as in Apple’s iMessage — which would still be better than nothing — to a decentralized (but still usable) approach like the
o one offered by Signal or OTR. Whatever the solution, in order to achieve mass deployment, keys need to be made much more manageable or else submerged from the user altogether.
« Forward secrecy baked into the protocol. This should be a pre-condition to any secure messaging system.
« Cryptography that post-dates the Fresh Prince. Enough said.
[a green verified checkmark on the following paragraph]
o « Screw backwards compatibility. Securing both encrypted and unencrypted email is too hard. We need dedicated networks that handle this from the start.](https://files.mastodon.social/cache/media_attachments/files/114/307/334/402/312/904/original/53279cd15eec793c.png)
