Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#41

Post by meowface »

macNchz wrote: post #30
joering2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively setup your own free mailserver. Its always been a puzzle to me why so many people just don't own their own mailserver, just like you "own" your mail box at your property. You can use spamassasin which is as good as they come. Problem solved.

I'm not a sysadmin, but I'm a software engineer generally pretty comfortable doing ops stuff...and I'm pretty daunted by the thought of running my own email server. Beyond the setup(1), which isn't child's play, there's ongoing maintenance, possible issues with deliverability, security concerns, availability concerns (what if my server goes down while I'm off the grid on vacation and all my emails bounce for a week?)…

For a personal mail server, it really isn't that hard and isn't much more work than setting up an HTTP server. Obviously if you're going to be a mail admin for an organization you'll need to put more work into it, but propping up postfix and some mail frontend on a personal server is pretty easy.

No frontend you use will ever be as useful and simple as a big webmail provider's (like Gmail), but just ensuring successful delivery and receipt of mail really isn't that hard unless your server happens to be in some IP space with poor reputation. If it was that hard, email would be a lot more broken than it currently is.

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#42

Post by Alupis »

amirmc wrote: post #37
joering2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively setup your own free mailserver. Its always been a puzzle to me why so many people just don't own their own mailserver, just like you "own" your mail box at your property. You can use spamassasin which is as good as they come. Problem solved.

The mailbox at your house doesn't require security patches, trouble-shooting, upgrade cycles, and that's just the software stack itself. When you get to the issue of blacklisting/deliverability that's a whole new set of problems. Ultimately, I do want to run my own email server but not until it's a lot closer to 'fire-and-forget' (which for me, will be something Unikernel-based).

Zimbra is pretty much what you are after it sounds like. Just set it up once, and it just works. Just keep the OS updated and install any updates Zimbra releases. There is some manual work to get it going up front, but it's not hard.

The only way you can guarantee your email is kept private and not shared to any gov't agency or anything is to run it yourself. Then at least they have to serve you directly to get your emails ;P

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#44

Post by davidgerard »

joering2 wrote: post #23
wcummings wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also use a paid provider that doesn't show ads

Alternatively setup your own free mailserver. Its always been a puzzle to me why so many people just don't own their own mailserver, just like you "own" your mail box at your property. You can use spamassasin which is as good as they come. Problem solved.

For me, it's because GMail is hands-down the best email client I have EVER used.

For comparison, I have used at length on a daily basis Pine, Elm, Agent, Mutt, Thunderbird, Outlook, Outlook Express, Lotus Notes and GMail. GMail is so stupidly better I can hardly believe nobody's done a decent fat-client imitation.

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#46

Post by undrcvr-lagggal »

mapmeldo wrote: post #31
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mapping each base64 char to one word seems rather inefficient. If you have a longer list of N swears (say 256 because it's the size of a byte, making encoding easier), you could produce a more efficient base-N encoding, e.g.: var bytes = atob(base64msg), swearsMsg = ''; for (var i = 0; i Of course, it's still less efficient than base64, but it's an improvement. :)

yes, originally I was thinking 256. Unfortunately it's difficult to reach 256 without adding hate/vitrol/racist language

> without adding hate/vitrol/racist language

...and yet it's full of misogynistic language.

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#47

Post by lwhalen »

davidgerard wrote: post #44
joering2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively setup your own free mailserver. Its always been a puzzle to me why so many people just don't own their own mailserver, just like you "own" your mail box at your property. You can use spamassasin which is as good as they come. Problem solved.

For me, it's because GMail is hands-down the best email client I have EVER used. For comparison, I have used at length on a daily basis Pine, Elm, Agent, Mutt, Thunderbird, Outlook, Outlook Express, Lotus Notes and GMail. GMail is so stupidly better I can hardly believe nobody's done a decent fat-client imitation.

Check out Roundcube. Maybe not 100% GMail, but still light-years ahead of the MUAs you listed.

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#48

Post by jordigh »

davidgerard wrote: post #44
joering2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively setup your own free mailserver. Its always been a puzzle to me why so many people just don't own their own mailserver, just like you "own" your mail box at your property. You can use spamassasin which is as good as they come. Problem solved.

For me, it's because GMail is hands-down the best email client I have EVER used. For comparison, I have used at length on a daily basis Pine, Elm, Agent, Mutt, Thunderbird, Outlook, Outlook Express, Lotus Notes and GMail. GMail is so stupidly better I can hardly believe nobody's done a decent fat-client imitation.

You mean something like mailpile?

https://www.mailpile.is/

Re: Encrypt your e-mail with PGP and random profanity

#49

Post by betenoire »

mapmeldo wrote: post #31
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mapping each base64 char to one word seems rather inefficient. If you have a longer list of N swears (say 256 because it's the size of a byte, making encoding easier), you could produce a more efficient base-N encoding, e.g.: var bytes = atob(base64msg), swearsMsg = ''; for (var i = 0; i Of course, it's still less efficient than base64, but it's an improvement. :)

yes, originally I was thinking 256. Unfortunately it's difficult to reach 256 without adding hate/vitrol/racist language

add filler words and turn them into sentences?
Post reply on HN