Re:OpenMailBox: An alternative to Gmail based on free software
by prg318 on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @03:26PM
(#6175034)
The software used in the mail stack is purely open source software. Looks like they are running a fairly standard Postfix stack and are using roundcube for webmail [1].
I'll stick with my current solution of lavabit (which encrypts all mails stored on their server) [2] and running my own roundcube instance for when I need webmail.
Re:OpenMailBox: An alternative to Gmail based on free software
by jmathai on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @03:45PM
(#6175130)
> The software used in the mail stack is purely open source software.
Does that really matter? I don't think the solution for people wanting to move off of GMail is to set up another company that stores your email.
What I'd love is a physical box I can plug in at home which stores my email and provides all the tools which GMail does (web/mobile apps, features, etc).
Even then, I'm not sure I'd switch. This is a tough nut to crack...but it's promising to see people trying. Hope something comes out of all the work going on in this space.
Re:OpenMailBox: An alternative to Gmail based on free software
by vincentstorme on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @03:46PM
(#6175139)
I used to use Lavabit, but made the switch because of their policies and logging:
Re:OpenMailBox: An alternative to Gmail based on free software
by poulson on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @03:47PM
(#6175144)
The fact that lavabit unexpectedly went down last night (and is still down) without them announcing it beforehand, or saying when it will be back up, is really annoying me right now.
Re:OpenMailBox: An alternative to Gmail based on free software
by joshstrange on Thursday August 08, 2013 @03:15PM
(#6181099)
This might be why... https://lavabit.com/
There might be a promise not to sell data, but you aren't doing any client/server encryption to prevent yourselves from reading it. If a government sent a request you couldn't deny, data could still be collected. Gmail has HTTPS, but everyone agrees that only protects from MITM attacks from the hacker in the coffee shop, not the one in the datacenter.