Switching to the Nylas N1 Email Client
-
@Dashrender also, remember that @scottalanmiller is a full time linux using now
-
@Dashrender I'm just looking for an Outlook replacement for Linux. I use outlook as my everyday client.
-
@anonymous said:
@brianlittlejohn That's correct. You now have a middle man, who could is theory read your mail.
I'm using O365, I'm not really interested in having yet another possible middle man reading my email.
-
@anonymous said:
@brianlittlejohn sadly you can't self host exchange
You can, it's very common. Not advised, but extremely common. Nearly every business still does this. In SW I'd say it is like 80% of companies.
-
@anonymous said:
@coliver I mean on N1
You can't? I've not looked into it, but they call the feature Exchange, not Office 365. It should see self hosted the same as it sees O365.
-
@anonymous said:
The open-source Nylas Sync Engine does not support Exchange, but the hosted version does.
OH, now I see. They probably don't have an open source Active Sync connector.
-
@anonymous said:
@Dashrender You have to install it.
We need a web client that has all the same features as outlook that is free and open source.
Not sure I agree.
Frankly I'm surprised that Scott is doing this other than to know about another product. Why lock yourself down to a non mobile client for email access?
I've been using a web based email client personally for over a decade, I personally purchased a domain name and subscribed to O365 SMB account because I like OWA better than my old client.
So I'm paying around $8/month for my email (when I include the cost the domain name).
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@Dashrender I'm just looking for an Outlook replacement for Linux. I use outlook as my everyday client.
N1 seems pretty good. Super easy and very attractive.
-
@Dashrender said:
@anonymous said:
@Dashrender You have to install it.
We need a web client that has all the same features as outlook that is free and open source.
Not sure I agree.
Frankly I'm surprised that Scott is doing this other than to know about another product. Why lock yourself down to a non mobile client for email access?
I've been using a web based email client personally for over a decade, I personally purchased a domain name and subscribed to O365 SMB account because I like OWA better than my old client.
So I'm paying around $8/month for my email (when I include the cost the domain name).
I don't like OWA either. I like it more than Outlook, sure, but that's a low bar. Having a good email client would be nice.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@anonymous said:
@Dashrender You have to install it.
We need a web client that has all the same features as outlook that is free and open source.
Not sure I agree.
Frankly I'm surprised that Scott is doing this other than to know about another product. Why lock yourself down to a non mobile client for email access?
I've been using a web based email client personally for over a decade, I personally purchased a domain name and subscribed to O365 SMB account because I like OWA better than my old client.
So I'm paying around $8/month for my email (when I include the cost the domain name).
I don't like OWA either. I like it more than Outlook, sure, but that's a low bar. Having a good email client would be nice.
Sure, whatever it is about Outlook/OWA that you don't like, but moving to a local email client? Maybe it doesn't really matter. Why doesn't it matter? Because you are using a local client on your phone, your iPad, etc - so assuming you have no need to use a computer that doesn't belong to you to check your email, there is no reason for you to be truly mobile webmail, of course that said, since you're using O365, you'd still have the option in a pinch if you needed it.
OK, I get it now, as much as I can considering I like Outlook
-
I guess my biggest concern with an app like this is that they have access to my email... I guess I'm not comfortable with yet another company potentially having access to my email.
-
I can see where people would not like people having access to their email, but one we accept that tons of companies we don't trust (ISP, NSA) do have access to it and have no accountability that having companies we do trust (Microsoft, Nylas) have access when they do have accountability doesn't really seem to matter.
Do I like people having access to my email? Not really. Do I care? Not much. It's so much better than what is already happening to my email that I don't see it as worth really thinking about.
-
@scottalanmiller So your saying that SSL is broken?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller So your saying that SSL is broken?
I think we can be pretty sure of that. It's one of the best tools that we have, and companies like Lenovo work really hard to bypass it for their own purposes because it isn't trivial to break, but it is pretty safe to assume that one way or another, people have access to your data.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller So your saying that SSL is broken?
I think we can be pretty sure of that. It's one of the best tools that we have, and companies like Lenovo work really hard to bypass it for their own purposes because it isn't trivial to break, but it is pretty safe to assume that one way or another, people have access to your data.
This is why it's important to send sensitive data in some encrypted from that your average hacker won't have access to easily hack. [tinfoilhat] Although, arguably, one still has to wonder if the NSA has included back doors into these encryption algorythms so they can get to your data anyway [/tinfoilhat]
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller So your saying that SSL is broken?
I think we can be pretty sure of that. It's one of the best tools that we have, and companies like Lenovo work really hard to bypass it for their own purposes because it isn't trivial to break, but it is pretty safe to assume that one way or another, people have access to your data.
This is why it's important to send sensitive data in some encrypted from that your average hacker won't have access to easily hack. [tinfoilhat] Although, arguably, one still has to wonder if the NSA has included back doors into these encryption algorithms so they can get to your data anyway [/tinfoilhat]
Clearly they have tried. The NSA got RSA to use a Random Number Generator that the NSA was behind and it was discovered a few years ago that it was rather vulnerable to decryption attack. RSA got a black eye over it, but not enough that anyone really cared.
Luckily we do have a fair amount of white hat hackers out there looking over the commonly used encryption protocols that I don't believe that they themselves have been compromised. Instead the NSA, FBI, HS, local police, etc all use viruii to infect endpoints that they want to surveil
-
@Dashrender said:
Clearly they have tried. The NSA got RSA to use a Random Number Generator that the NSA was behind and it was discovered a few years ago that it was rather vulnerable to decryption attack. RSA got a black eye over it, but not enough that anyone really cared.
Well... enough that a lot of people don't associated RSA with serious security. RSA is regularly mocked as are people paying their prices. RSA used to stand for security, I don't know anyone who feels that way today. That you even remember this as a non-security researcher shows just how deeply that memory goes.
-
@Dashrender said:
Luckily we do have a fair amount of white hat hackers out there looking over the commonly used encryption protocols that I don't believe that they themselves have been compromised. Instead the NSA, FBI, HS, local police, etc all use viruii to infect endpoints that they want to surveil
As long as the implementations are open source. Open source is the only real protection against the government.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Luckily we do have a fair amount of white hat hackers out there looking over the commonly used encryption protocols that I don't believe that they themselves have been compromised. Instead the NSA, FBI, HS, local police, etc all use viruii to infect endpoints that they want to surveil
As long as the implementations are open source. Open source is the only real protection against the government.
Oh, absolutely!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Clearly they have tried. The NSA got RSA to use a Random Number Generator that the NSA was behind and it was discovered a few years ago that it was rather vulnerable to decryption attack. RSA got a black eye over it, but not enough that anyone really cared.
Well... enough that a lot of people don't associated RSA with serious security. RSA is regularly mocked as are people paying their prices. RSA used to stand for security, I don't know anyone who feels that way today. That you even remember this as a non-security researcher shows just how deeply that memory goes.
I only do because of the podcasts I listen to.
