<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 2015-25-08 15:57, Gervase Markham wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The loss of functionality in encryption
(such<br>
as online search of your webmail, or loss of email content if<br>
certificates are lost) will give an unacceptable user experience
to the<br>
vast majority of users” was the sense of the majority.<br>
</blockquote>
I think that TB should store mail locally unencrypted, to avoid
data<br>
loss if credentials are lost, and to allow local searching. In
other<br>
words, the threat model of someone compromising your computer
should be<br>
out of scope for Thunderbird - that should be mitigated with full
disk<br>
encryption, etc.</blockquote>
Yes. To this point, adding one question: which one of these two
imperfect alternatives improves the most the current situation?<br>
<ul>
<li>Users (that's at least me, several friends, and apparently <a
href="https://blog.mozilla.org/thunderbird/2015/08/thunderbird-and-end-to-end-email-encryption-should-this-be-a-priority/#comment-907">someone
answering on the blog post</a>) wanting encryption but
dropping the ball altogether because the lack of searchability
is too much of an hassle.</li>
<li>Users benefiting en masse from end-to end encryption and, yes,
being vulnerable at the endpoint *if* they were not educated to
use full-disk encryption.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>I don't have numbers of the percentage of Tb users deterred by
Enigmail due to this serious usability regression, but I know I'd
re-enable Enigmail in a heartbeat if my email stayed searchable.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Ronan</pre>
</body>
</html>