Protonmail Recommended Browsers | Hacker News Reader

Protonmail Recommended Browsers

proton.me

132 points_solr148 comments

It's good to see Firefox on top of this list.

Is Protonmail usually accessed through web clients? I only use native iOS client and MacOS Mail with the Bridge app. Somehow I would expect Protonmail users to not use the web client so much, maybe I am wrong.

Well... Protonmail happens to be the only e-mail provider that cannot fully be used as intended using just NMAP, because the core feature is its proprietary encryption and related features. So I would guess it's probably a singular outlier in having more web client users, rather than less.

Nitpick: I think you meant IMAP (a standard email client protocol) instead of NMAP (a port scanning program).

I dunno, there are some pretty neat NSE scripts.

Partly true: you can install a local IMAP gateway (Proton Mail Bridge) to access your inbox from normal MUAs. FAFAIK it supports all regular IMAP operations.

Some people use ProtonMail because it's precisely not Google, and most who are using it as Gmail replacement will still use it in-browser (as opposed to using it in Thunderbird or something else).

I use the web client at work because I'd rather not go through the involved process of installing something.

Web client on desktop, native app on my phone. It's the easiest. I use Protonmail because it's not Google and pleasant enough to use.

same here, web client on desktop, app on phone.

You can only use a desktop app if you pay for protonmail. I suppose almost all protonmail users are free users and therefore they can only use the website.

I pay for Protonmail and use the web client on desktop.

I hope that many other are paying users too, because there are no ads. And without paying clients, how can a service like Protonmail survive?

While I am using it, the android client sometimes has problems refreshing for me. So if I was waiting for something urgent, I would probably use the web client.

Try disabling alternative routing in the settings. Solved all refreshing problems for me.

So basically there are practically only 3 browsers left in the desktop world(1) - Firefox, Chrome, Safari. Protonmail works on all 3 of them, which is good. But why is this a news worthy topic?

(1) not counting obscure ones like Lynx or others.

I actually posted this link because I could not sign in to my mailbox yesterday due to the fact I was using the DDG browser on my tablet but my comment about it got buried.

Switched from Firefox to Brave a few years ago and never regretted it.

Ad blocker, IPFS, and Onion support out of the box is prett neat.

Plus the BAT (basic attention token) that I hope to become omnipresent in the web.

Unfortunately its really a centralized token.

Isn't Ethereum?

after wikileaks prism/nsa...it's really impossible for me to accept any kind of privacy assurances.

it's like there are public laws and hidden "patriot" laws, and companies are not allowed to disclose those things.

as a privacy company, if you haven't yet been raided by some government office, then you are probably compliant on some visible and invisible levels.

And let's not forget to add the Crypto AG story to that list.

Although I'm still naive enough (by choice) to trust a select few companies.

I was until recently using protonmail for throwaway email addresses for various web forums as it allowed a captcha verification during creation. Every other one I'd tried demands SMS verification these days, which is right out. But proton mail recently changed and requires SMS or another email now, I believe they say it is to combat bots.

I tried tutanota but it refuses to create an account at all over a VPN, or at least the VPNs I've used. At least it told me the reason it was a no go here instead of silently failing.

Anyone have any recommendations in this space?

If it’s really a throwaway (just a one time use for creating an account), I simply use 10minutemail.com

Many websites now refuse to create an account for you if your email uses a more exotic domain, or especially the domains used by the many temporary email address providers unfortunately.

My email's domain is as exotic as it gets (I own it, and I'm the only one using it) and I've yet to encounter a website that rejects it.

Temporary email address providers though, yeah. I've seen plenty of rejects with those.

I use Fastmail's aliases. It's not secure if you're trying to hide from state actors (your identities will be tied together in Fastmail's servers), but it's good enough for "I don't trust this forum not to get hacked and leak my email".

Were you using Tor Browser ? From Switzerland, I can create free Proton accounts by solving a captcha, if I'm using Safari or Firefox. But if I use Tor on the same computer, the only option is to enter a phone number.

No, just VPN. Although my endpoint wasn't Switzerland. I still had email verification as an option in my case.

This was a very recent (within last week) change I noticed though.

Why not use an email aliasing service instead of continually making throwaway emails?

Why is safari/webkit not in there. It my understanding that it's the most privacy respecting browser in the area of finger printing.

Librewolf wins those competitions by a mile.

So does ArkenFox that works within Firefox and hardens it without a new clone of the browser

Apple collects your browsing history, something which I have yet to find a good explanation for. https://apps.apple.com/zm/app/safari/id1146562112

It says the collected browsing data is not linked to the user's identity. Still a bad move by Apple.

Your statement seems to leave away some important "details", so here is the full text from your link:

The following data may be collected but it is not linked to your identity: Location Browsing History Usage Data Diagnostics

Wouldn’t most peoples browsing history plus location pretty much narrow them down to one person?

That link is to Safari on iOS and it says that your browsing history may be collected but it’s not linked to your identity.

Is it a privacy problem if Apple collects aggregate browsing history from iOS users?

And is this relevant to a thread about desktop browsers?

Unless sufficiently anonymized - and I don't know how much is actually sufficient - your browsing history can be used to identify you.

I visit my HN comments page almost daily. There’s no way this can be anonymized away from me as the url contains my userid and can be linked back to me.

Even anonymized, data can be used in negative ways against me (eg, trying to alter my purchase behavior through ads).

Safari history and tabs are end-to-end encrypted: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

And Apple provides iCloud+ members with a VPN which does not tie browsing history to users by separating ingress and egress traffic and using encrypted forwarding (similar to onion routing): https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/iCloud_Private_Relay_Over...

>Safari history and tabs are end-to-end encrypted: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

They are for iCloud backup, which is not the same as the data collected by the App AFAIK.

iCloud backup is not end to end encrypted. iCloud sync of Safari History, Tab Groups, and iCloud Tabs is. The data collection the app page mentioned sounds like a 3rd thing. Or even E2EE is considered data collection for App Store purposes.

I agree with you. In the present time, even as a profit grubbing corporation, Apple does a decent job privacy and security. This might change in the future, but I hope not.

I now use ProtonMail as my backup email even though I am a long term paying customer. This is obviously a personal decision, but I consider Apple’s email service to be good enough in terms of privacy and usability. Also, every company I have worked for in the last decade uses Google Workplace and I find having work material in Google and my stuff in Apple’s ecosystem leads to a good separation of work vs. my life.

Because brave/firefox is better, and its not based on the new IE engine(WebKIT) which is incompatible with anything that improves user experience to the point it competes with Mobile apps.

Yes its better than chrome, but its worse than anything which claims good privacy.

I don’t get brave. Works great but Feels scammy.

It’s my default browser for the past few years. It’s the fasted and the updates are small and seem respectful in that it asks me.

Chrome sneaks launchagents into startup and updates itself even though I don’t want to. And the agent has spiked my cpu and frustrated real activities.

The crypto stuff isn’t my favorite but I like the idea of “tipping” site owners although I’ve never done it. I used to put $2/month into flattr and wish it took off.

I bounced around between browsers a lot and settled on Brave. It works great on all my OS (Windows, Linux, MacOS, Android), sync all the extensions and settings, has adblocker on Android.

I don't understand why Safari isn't on the "recommended" list. Doesn't it respect your privacy?

No, apple takes a copy of your browsing history, apparently “anonymously” and you can’t opt out.

Don’t use it.

doesnt Apple store the history in iCloud, aka not anonymously?

This is true on iOS Safari, but is it also true on desktop Safari? (I genuinely don’t know the answer)

Their iCloud security page says “Safari History, Tab Groups, and iCloud Tabs” is end-to-end encrypted. So they store history to sync across devices but the keys are only on your devices.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Are the "keys" just your iCloud password (or a deterministic derivative thereof)? Otherwise, how could your tabs magically appear on a new device?

The keys are encrypted with your device pass codes. Setting up a new device requires the pass code from another device.

Nope, they are not your iCloud password. Keys for E2E items are kept on device and then there’s a process to join a signing circle for syncing. What this means in practice is to sync you need to allow your new device to be accepted into the circle from an existing device.

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec0a319b35f/...

Why are not the two comparatively huge browsers (at least to Tor and Brave!) Edge or Safari covered in the "Learn more" section? How do these compare to Chrome. I feel like they are obliged to cover them if they put them in the other "less respecting" list.

I tried to log in with the DuckDuckGo browser on my tablet yesterday and could not because it is not in this list.

Protonmail and Brave do indeed seem like a good fit. Two somewhat sketchy, very commercial outfits that market themselves as more private than the competition and that will gladly break existing standards and practices to so.

They also seem to attract surprisingly similar groups of users, including a larger-than-chance overlap. Protonmail, in particular, seems to have become a sort of running joke as the e-mail provider of choice to send threatening mails in all-caps.

I spotted a Proton address in the movie Knives Out (2019). It was used by the villain, naturally.

You're just making stuff up now.

I see critics on Protonmail, but Brave is an absolut legit fully open-sourced project. Nothing Sketchy, and no the opt-in Crypto Program is also nothing sketcht.

The sketchy part is being a Chrome clone while pretending to be a "different" browser.

To create a web browser you need some kind of rendering engine. And writing rendering engine that correctly handles current HTML, JavaScript, CSS specifications is hard. On top of that you build features like bookmarks, password manager, etc. I do not have a problem with some browser using Chrome rendering engine, if they remove all the sketchy parts, like sending every url that you browse to some central database, or backing up your passwords on Google server.

So, in the end, being based on Chrome rendering engine is not a damning quality in itself.

You guys will eventually have to get over that old "blink is chrome" trope. The world has moved on. It's time that you do.

Yes, as if the rendering engine is the only part of a browser.

The main part of the browser is its main developer. In this case it is Google. If Google decides to add QUIC support to the browser it will appear in all of the clones too, because they are not standalone. If Google decides to move to the Manifest V3 then all closes will move to it too. Whatever Google decides to implement deep in the Chrome browser, other will have no choice but to accept.

That's false. For example, Brave will continue supporting Manifest V2.

https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320

https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecom...

Yes, if they will keep this promise it will be great. It is a big effort for almost no profit, so I guess then Brave could be counted as a separate browser. It would probably depend on the extension authors too, since they would need to support two different versions, one of which for the Brave only, and another for all Chrome variations including Chrome itself.

As soon as will see even a single real fork of the Chrome, I will of course call it a separate browser. Just like I called Safari if you saw above. Safari and Chrome grow from the same source years ago, but Apple decided to make a real own browser, not just tune some settings and add or remove plugins.

Well, it's the other way around, actually. Safari's WebKit was based on Konqueror's KHTML, and Chrome's Blink was in turn based on WebKit. See here [0], it's pretty interesting

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins

While the opt-in crypto program may not be sketchy per se, all ads that I have ever seen on it where in some way or the other get-rich-quick schemes. And that is imo what most of the criticism is about.

Can you recommend a paid mail service which is better? I'm in a search process now, to ditch google as much as I can, and was leaning towards Proton services.

Proton is good, not sure what OP means by "sketchy". I personally also use Hey and used Fastmail before. All three are great alternatives to Google.

I’m slowly moving to Fastmail. I tried hey. Their app is terrible. The whole thing seems clunky.

Hey isn't for everyone, it's quite quirky and opiniated. Fastmail is more a classic email experience. I personally like the style of Hey and some of their unique features such as Screener and Collab.

I guess it depends on which parts they need to be better.

From a functionality standpoint I would list, hey.com, fastmail and icloud as better. mailbox.org is better on being a traditional mail host you access using your own client (no wierd bridge app). hey.com and icloud are US hosted if that matters to you.

For the semi selfhosted options https://thehelm.com seems like a really good option.

I've been using Tutanota for the past several months, and the experience has been exceptional! I highly suggest checking them out. They even have free accounts now (when I signed up, it was pay-only).

https://tutanota.com/

Happy Fastmail customer for 10 years or so. They are quite focused and do a great job. My only complaint is their mobile app: I wish it worked offline. I've used K-9 to work around this, but don't feel like I should have to.

Brave seems more that somewhat sketchy, like their rewriting of affiliate codes: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we...

Yes, that was definitely a mistake, but it happened in 2020, and they apologized. I don't know how relevant that example is today, as it doesn't represent current behavior of the browser.

Disclaimer: I don't use Brave

What's sketchy about Protonmail? It seems fine to me.

The 'commercial'ness of Protonmail is why I trust it. The email company makes money by charging for email accounts. Very straightforward.

Why do privacy folks recommend Brave?

Isn't Brave a commercial, ad serving entity?

All I remember brave for is some crypto nonsense, and looking at wikipedia it seems they were doing some kind of suspect "content creator payments" that were opt-out and not forwarded?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...

At the face of it, it sounds like they had a "Donate to platypus" button but you'd only get the donations if you knew to sign up with them on the back end? Gross.

Why is it "nonsense"? Seems like a good thing to try and see if it works as a way to pay content creators. Maybe it doesn't, we will see. But why call it "nonsense"?

It's opt-in for people to choose Brave over another browser.

It's opt-in for creators to accept payouts.

All the complaints mentioned in your link were resolved 2 years ago. Brave returns money to donators if the creator doesn't sign up within 90 days. And creators status with Brave is clearly prominent in the UI.

The list of sketchy stuff in Chrome over the years makes Brave look saintly. And Firefox and even Safari.

Depends on the person. As someone who values the environment I don't want any crypto stuff in my browser. Totally not saintly for me.

BAT is built on top of ETH which is moving to proof of stake.

The "crypto nonsense" is the Basic Attention Token. If you enable ads, you get paid in cryptocurrency for your attention.

Completely optional too. First time I've ever seen an advertiser allow users to simply turn off the ads. Plenty of people use Brave on mobile just for the built-in ad blocker. It's not as good as Firefox + uBlock Origin but it's still a huge improvement over Chrome.

Don't mistake privacy folks with their marketing team. Also people force its use to increase the value of the Brave token.

In conclusion, snake oil and yet another crypto scam.

The short answer is that yes, Brave as a company does have some competing incentives which rightly should be constantly criticised, HOWEVER, Brave the browser performs well in multiple independent reviews of browser privacy. A nice one is https://privacytests.org/, though there are also some academic studies which I will link if I find.

"Independent tests"

PrivacyTests.org is run by a Brave employee (Arthur Edelstein)

He is extremely smart person though, just that money can taint any good intentions easily. Especially in a very "shark" ecosystem.

Interesting. Wondered why results are displayed there as they are; the ones at the top look bad for Vivaldi, for example. Speaking of which Proton don't include Vivaldi. Perhaps as they have their own email client built right into their browser. Nope, I don't work for Vivaldi. It's one of several that I use.

His disclosure statement, FWIW:

>Full disclosure and transparency

>(Updated June 2022)

>This website and the browser privacy tests are an independent project by me, Arthur Edelstein. I have developed this project on my own time and on my own initiative. Several months after first publishing the website, I became an employee of Brave, where I contribute to Brave's browser privacy engineering efforts. I continue to run this website independently of my employer, however. There is no connection with Brave marketing efforts whatsoever.

>I am committed to maintaining this website's accuracy and impartiality. It is my goal not to promote any browser here, but rather to offer objective test results for all browsers that encourages a general improvement in privacy across the industry.

>By keeping this project fully open source, I endeavor to provide the maximum possible transparency and verifiability of the tests and results. Anyone who wishes to check the results can clone the git repository and run the browser tests independently. Ideas for additional tests, or code (pull requests) for additional tests that provide further insight into browser privacy, will be gratefully accepted.

That's a good point, thanks for raising it. I cannot amend my original post sadly, though.

Here is one more source - one of the academic studies I mentioned. https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf

It is not a comprehensive argument that "brave better", just that it sends less tracking information by default. Still, I think that's an important metric.

I wonder how Brave compares to (Firefox + uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger).

Or you can run those two with Brave and not use Brave's built-in shields as much.

On desktop you can also add your own lists to braves filters and even create your own if you so wish.

Can't do that on mobile.

Brave is inferior to Firefox with uBlock Origin. In my experience advertisers get around Brave's blocker more often.

Privacy Badger is not recommended these days. It actually makes you more fingerprintable in some cases. Its better to use in-browser anti fingerprinting.

Brave's adblock is actually based on the filtering used by ublock (check out the filter list pages for both browsers!). However, it is inferior to ublock on Firefox (or librewolf) as there is more sophisticated CNAME uncloaking (among other things) on FF/LW.

Care to detail how Firefox/ublock is better than brave in CNAME uncloaking?

Can do. Please refer to the below post on the uBlock Origin maintainers site: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

that is about chrome comparison which can NOT do CNAME-uncloaking.

Brave does do CNAME-uncloaking.

I thought you were saying firefox CNAME-uncloaking is somehow better than brave's.

The wat they organize that (claim at least, but from my understanding, that is correct), is to align those interests with those of its users. You can opt out, in, determine yourself to which extent.

Disclaimer: I do consulting work for Brave. Opinions my own.

Maintaining a browser is a huge amount of work. The web evolves constantly and security fixes are extremely important. Being competitive in the space requires a very large amount of engineering resources.

A commercial entity has a sustainable path to providing those resources. While nobody likes ads, I think they're opt-in in Brave and at the end of the day they're a potential source of funding for the necessary development efforts. Brave also has a unique way of serving ads in a privacy-friendly way.

Most of Brave is developed in the open. Where it isn't, there are good reasons why such as for example security. But I'm also privy to some of the internal discussions. It is amazing how much thought and effort the people at Brave put into privacy, even when it is not visible to the outside world. Again serious engineering resources are devoted to changing Google's Chromium implementation to make it better for privacy. One discussion I vaguely remember was how browser caching can be used to fingerprint users in a very subtle way, and Brave engineers thought very long and hard about how to close this particular loophole of the web.

In short, I don't think "commercial" is bad and having seen some of the internal discussions, I trust Brave a lot when it comes to privacy.

> Most of Brave is developed in the open. Where it isn't, there are good reasons why such as for example security.

I don't think you can muster a good security reason for not developing something in the open.

It's normal in any open source project to keep security mailing lists and things of that nature private. And for good reasons.

One of the reasons is they are dealing with security related bug reports. Public disclosure before having a fix in place puts users at risk.

Besides that 'security' is a process that all groups are responsible for. So it can't help being _developed_ in the open if the project is open. Which Brave is.

I agree with the above. I guess I interpreted the comment as saying some code parts of Brave are not open for security reasons. I don't actually know whether this is true or not.

Code wise, sure, but if you're discussing a 0-day in the wild, you may want to keep it private while you work out the details and the solution, otherwise you're inviting more abuse.

The difficulty is , as always, incentives.

Brave is an ad company, in the sense that their only revenue is from ads.

Brave has every motivation to make external tracking as useless as possible, because it increases the relative competitiveness of their own ad platform. Since they own the browser, they can track as much as they want. I'm not saying that they do this today, their implementation might be very privacy focused right now.

I also appreciate that you need money to maintain a browser, even if it's just a layer on top of Chromium.

But we've seen again and again that maximizing revenue always wins out in the long term.

As long as primary revenue for Brave is ads I don't see why I should trust them any more than Google. Less so in fact, because Google doesn't depend on Chrome to generate revenue. For them it's just a helpful sidekick.

> Brave is an ad company, in the sense that their only revenue is from ads.

This is like saying non-profits are donation companies. It's stretching the definition to make a point and ultimately circular logic.

> This is like saying non-profits are donation companies

Not sure how true that is. Non profits definitely rely on donations as their sole income, and are incentivized to take actions to maximize donations, but the difference is that (ideally) they can't really line their own pockets with the income that comes in. So the only reason they would maximize their income is to put more money into the things that they do.

This is not the case with Brave. The browser is a front, or a channel, for their token and ad network. They only need to keep the browser part of it functional enough to keep traffic. They have no real incentive to improve the browser beyond that point, especially if other competitors stagnate and the money keeps coming in.

> A commercial entity has a sustainable path to providing those resources....

[...]

> ...having seen some of the internal discussions, I trust Brave a lot when it comes to privacy.

I felt similarly about Google while I worked there. There were and still are a great many very skilled people focusing on security and privacy within Google, with good intentions. I personally had my own work vetted multiple times for security related stuff, and I was quite impressed.

Yet, Google has grown a bit of a PR problem with respect to privacy issues.

The (potential) problem is structural. Commercial entities exist to make money for investors. Protecting user privacy is a different goal. We also live in a world of grey areas, so judgement calls need to be made.

What structurally prevents the Brave corporation from changing once those people leave, leadership changes, acquisitions happen or Brave is acquired?

I see no particular structural reason to trust Brave more than Google. They're both companies that go to great lengths to respect and preserve user privacy. They're both corporations that exist to make money for investors.

What would I trust even more than Brave or Google? Something run under some form of governance that is legally accountable at a primary and structural level to what it is actually aiming to provide (e.g. privacy) rather than to making money (most every corporation in the world).

One difference between Google and Brave is that Brave has privacy as its selling point to users. If they compromise on that, then they will become less attractive to users. As such, they are much better aligned with users when it comes to privacy. I would say that actually is a structural reason.

Like Apple? I suppose it is about trust, not as much about "ad serving" or not.

That said: FireFox4Life! (Or at least, until they betray my trust).

yes. Brave is functionally sort of like a mafia protection racket. They just insert themselves between you and whatever you're browsing, block everyone else's ads, and insert their own. except their ads are supposedly the good ones, and they cut you in on it by giving you some of their made up token currency

Brave Ads are better than the ads they block in my opinion. They are opt in. They aren't targeted/tracking. They appear as notification bubbles so they don't disrupt page content. They don't run javascript which can be a security and performance problem.

They are targeted, but the targeting is imprecise and occurs client-side to improve anonymity.

I agree. As far as advertising goes, they're almost tolerable. I never thought I'd ever see the day an advertiser would allow people to turn off the ads.

> block everyone else's ads

Nothing wrong with that. Every browser should do that by default.

> except their ads are supposedly the good ones

You can literally turn them off. Only way for advertising to get better than that is to stop existing.

Also, if you do turn them on, they're the most benign ads I've ever seen. Basically a small text notification. Easily dismissed and ignored.

> they cut you in on it by giving you some of their made up token currency

They pay you in cryptocurrency for your attention. The idea was for people to spend those coins on the sites they like. I think the execution could have been better. Most people just amass a large amount of coins and exchange for other cryptocurrencies or USD.

It's not "made up". At the top of the cryptocurrency bull market, 1 BAT was worth almost two dollars. I've seen people with thousands of BATs just from browsing.

>It's not "made up".

of course it is. It's a pre-mined token that has only one incentive, and that is to get more people to use Brave and BAT. They could have simply payed you in dollars, Ethereum or Bitcoin directly, right? No harder to credit you with an existing, relatively stable crypto currency. The difference is of course, they would have to actually pay for that and you'd have no incentive to pump up the currency.

it's pretty genius in a way to bolt a MLM scheme on top of a browser.

They also still have trouble with websockets. Sometimes it just fails to reconnect, and will not work before restarting the browser or opening a private window. This is what drove me away from it, as well as recommending our clients to use another browser. There's an issue here from april 21 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15410 which initially seemed geared towards Phoenix Liveview, but others have trouble with other frameworks and applications as well it seems.

So that’s what killed my web session to various OAuth1/2 auth logins, such as Twitter.

Brave/iOS. (Still killing it, still on hold).

It's opt in. I don't see any Brave ads nor I use any crypto stuff, it's completely optional, and it helps them pay their bills.

I prefer it better than for a browser to get 100 millions $ from Google

So is Mozilla. Mozilla makes there money through product placement (mostly from Google) though they now make some money on the side selling (targeted) ads through out the browser.

Many comments here that I agree with, but I'd add that thinking purely in terms of commercial vs non-commercial is very reductive.

Mozilla is a not-for-profit company, and that matters, but they do engage in advertising deals and things of the sort. Non-profits do have less incentives for unethical behavior, but they don't have zero incentives.

I don't think we can only recommend non-commercial companies, although giving points for being so is good.

(Biases disclaimer: I like Brave, I prefer Firefox by a tiny margin)

Yes, that situation is strange to me. Mozilla makes hundreds of millions (or more?) annually. In what tangible way is it different from a for-profit company?

As an aside, I'm looking to move to proton. Any feedback on how good and prompt is their customer care?

I've moved all my email to Proton over the course of the last year or so. Each interaction I've had with customer support as been great, resolving my issues usually same day as I've opened the ticket. Only two downsides in my mind is the lack of an iOS calendar app (its in closed beta atm) and twice since I've signed up they have suffered multi-hour outages that left me without access to email.

I have been using proton for more than 2 years now. These outages are rare, they haven't occurred for a long time, I think they are due to the new flood of subscribers after the new plans were revealed.

But In general it has been very stable.

Thank you. This is helpful. I dont use iOS, so its not a show stopper for me. The outages is what I'm a bit worried about though.

ProtonDrive isnt useful outside web.

- protonVPN is great! But its linux app is not. - Proton Mail contact sync doesn't Integrate with the OS itself. - Proton Calendar doesn't integrate with the system, and isn't included with bridge. - Proton is generally very stable and very professional, but their rate of development isn't the fastest. - the proton bridge is great, no problems so far.

Not completely on topic but just throwing this out there: Anyone know how to send from any user under a personal domain on an iPhone?

I have a personal mail domain that I have connected to proton. On my laptop I can send from any user@mydomain.com via Thunderbird connected to a free SendGrid outbound server. But on my phone I can only read mail or send from proton registered user@. Wondering if anyone knows of an ios mail client that allows me to setup something like Thunderbird with custom outbound server

You can change the SMTP servers at: Settings > Mail > Accounts > -choose account- > Account > SMTP

Depends on your actual setup, but I’ll tell you instead when you cannot change it: When using a configuration profile to add the mail account. (Except of course if it’s in the profile already.)

Kind of funny that they included Pale Moon, IceCat, and SeaMonkey but not ungoogled-chromium, which imo is effectively the best compromise between privacy & a modern usable browser -- the only downside is the hardship of installing extensions manually.

And no Vivaldi mention

Vivaldi with defaults, maybe not the most optimal solution imo. But vivaldi tweaked (including no sync, etc.), sure. I probably share your surprise when I see people not aware of Vivaldi, and I'm not sure if it's due to their historical links with Opera(which by the way it's awful privacy-wise, but that's my opinion at least). Vivaldi is a good browser regarding mouse-focused browsing (or even touch I guess): their gesture system is definitely one of the best though I haven't tried Safari. I however stopped using Vivaldi a long time ago due to the fact that their Linux builds had horrendous hardware acceleration performance. Maybe I'll revisit it.

I feel this resource should be mentioned here as well https://www.privacyguides.org

What’s wrong with Safari privacy-wise?

Nothing, as far as I can tell. End-to-end encrypted history and tabs, and recent versions with iCloud+ use encrypted DNS and VPN (iCloud private relay) that uses encrypted forwarding so ingress servers can’t tie your requests to a destination.

Outside of using Tor and your own VPN, it looks like Safari w/ iCloud+ protects browsing history from everyone (Apple and ISPs) while delivering a seamless experience.

The "it stores tabs in the cloud" appears to be for syncing between devices. Using private browsing on safari should alleviate those concerns.

https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/browse-privately-ibrw...

> Your open webpages aren’t stored in iCloud, so they aren’t shown when you view all your open tabs from other devices.

> Your recent searches aren’t included in the results list when you use the Smart Search field.

Probably nothing; Apple talks a good privacy talk and I always recommend Apple products to my non-nerd friends and family because of it.

HOWEVER, I can't really get past the fact that it's closed source. At the end of the day, that means that Apple can say they do XYZ practice, and it's very likely to be true (some is testable, and imagine the shit-storm if a whistle blower showed that they really do store your keys, etc), but what if it does something else sketchy "instead" of the things they promise they aren't doing?

Pretty much, if I care about privacy, closed source anything never makes it on my list.

> Apple talks a good privacy talk

but they don't walk the talk

Lynx and emacs eww

I'll stick with Chrome, thanks.

Enjoy your zero privacy mate!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com