Who cares? I'm more interested in knowing the percentage encrypted _before_ transport.
"During transport" requires authentication; otherwise all bets are off.
"Before transport" at least minimizes the damage if the email is sent to the wrong recipient.
I have yet to see an authentication mechanism that looks "trustworthy" (decentralized and simple), other than a pre-sharing some identifier face-to-face.
> Who cares?
uh, the more than a billion (maybe more than two billion) people who use email and get their email swept up in casual dragnet surveillance otherwise?
Doesn't really help, because most of email clients do encryption automatically. Which means that then the message is encrypted to wrong recipient as well.
I was referring to the case where the email is redirecting to (or through) an unintended recipient.
Before my comment is further misinterpreted, let me make clear:
I am not saying "Do not use SSL/TLS." By all means use it; regardless of the bugs, the complexity and the lack of an acceptable authentication mechanism.
But encrypting before transport is even more important, IMO. And so that is a more interesting statistic.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Not to mention one could use SSH for encryption "in transit". It has better authentication than SSL/TLS, but that's only my opinion.