Skip to content

Aaron Aubrecht

My feedback

6 results found

  1. 978 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Aaron Aubrecht supported this idea  · 
  2. 1,118 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Aaron Aubrecht supported this idea  · 
  3. 676 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Aaron Aubrecht supported this idea  · 
  4. 3,773 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We have given this quite a bit of thought, but at the present moment, it is not clear the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

    The biggest problem is search. Encrypting all metadata would break metadata search entirely on the web client as there is still no efficient way to handle search of encrypted data within a browser.

    Secondly, metadata encryption’s value from a privacy standpoint is also somewhat dubious. Because we ultimately must deliver the message to the recipient, we must know who the recipient is. At the current time, there still isn’t any proven and viable way to work around this.

    Metadata encryption is an area of continued research for us, and when the opportunity arises and the technology for doing this matures, we will definitely implement it in ProtonMail.

    Aaron Aubrecht supported this idea  · 
  5. 15,745 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Aaron Aubrecht supported this idea  · 
  6. 5,744 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Aaron Aubrecht commented  · 

    As an equally secure (perhaps more secure?) solution, try this:
    1. Host your contacts on your NAS (I use Synology's Contacts app)
    2. Use a WebDAV app to sync to your mobile (I use Contact Sync on Android - paid), and
    3. Use open source CalDavSynchronize to sync to your desktop Outlook client (if you use it)

    The UX is not perfect if you prefer ProtonMail's webmail or app on Android... but...
    I wholeheartedly agree with the many other posters who have highlighted the pace of new feature delivery at ProtonMail is incredibly slow...

    The solution described above will provide a secure, reliable, and private solution TODAY.

Feedback and Knowledge Base