Pros of proton-bridge

• Official ProtonMail client, ensuring compatibility and support
• More feature-rich, including calendar and contacts sync
• Regular updates and maintenance from the ProtonMail team

Cons of proton-bridge

• Closed-source, limiting transparency and community contributions
• Requires a paid ProtonMail account for full functionality
• Heavier resource usage compared to hydroxide

Code comparison

hydroxide:

func (b *Bridge) Login(username, password string) error {
    auth, err := protonmail.NewAuth(b.client, username, password)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    b.auth = auth
    return nil
}

proton-bridge:

func (b *Bridge) Login(username, password string) error {
    // Actual code not available due to closed-source nature
    // Hypothetical implementation:
    auth, err := protonmail.Authenticate(b.client, username, password)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    b.auth = auth
    return nil
}

Note: The proton-bridge code is hypothetical due to its closed-source nature, while hydroxide's code is publicly available.

Pros of Mailspring

• User-friendly GUI with a modern, polished interface
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Advanced features like contact profiles, link tracking, and snoozing

Cons of Mailspring

• Closed-source core, limiting customization options
• Requires a Mailspring ID for some features
• Heavier resource usage compared to lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

Hydroxide (Go):

func (b *Bridge) handleLogin(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    username := r.FormValue("username")
    password := r.FormValue("password")
    twoFactor := r.FormValue("twofactor")
    // ... (authentication logic)
}

Mailspring (JavaScript):

async function handleAuthRequest(req, res) {
  const { username, password, twoFactorCode } = req.body;
  try {
    const authResult = await authenticateUser(username, password, twoFactorCode);
    res.json(authResult);
  } catch (error) {
    res.status(401).json({ error: 'Authentication failed' });
  }
}

Summary

Hydroxide is a lightweight, open-source bridge for ProtonMail, focusing on simplicity and privacy. It's command-line based and ideal for tech-savvy users who prefer minimal resource usage.

Mailspring offers a feature-rich, user-friendly email client with a polished GUI, suitable for users who want a modern email experience across multiple platforms. However, it has a closed-source core and may require more system resources.

The code comparison shows Hydroxide's Go implementation for handling logins, while Mailspring uses JavaScript with async/await for authentication requests.

Pros of Nylas Mail

• Full-featured email client with a modern, user-friendly interface
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for customization and additional features

Cons of Nylas Mail

• Discontinued project with no active development or support
• Potential security concerns due to lack of updates
• Requires a Nylas account and syncs data to Nylas servers

Code Comparison

Nylas Mail (JavaScript):

import { React } from 'nylas-exports';
import { RetinaImg } from 'nylas-component-kit';

class MyComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return <RetinaImg name="my-icon.png" mode={RetinaImg.Mode.ContentPreserve} />;
  }
}

Hydroxide (Go):

package main

import (
    "github.com/emersion/go-imap"
    "github.com/emersion/go-imap/client"
)

func main() {
    c, err := client.DialTLS("imap.example.org:993", nil)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err)
    }
    defer c.Logout()
}

While Nylas Mail offers a rich user interface and plugin system, it's no longer maintained. Hydroxide, on the other hand, is an actively developed IMAP and SMTP bridge focusing on privacy and security. Nylas Mail uses JavaScript and React for its frontend, while Hydroxide is written in Go and provides a lower-level API for email protocols.

Pros of Tutanota

• Full-featured email client with end-to-end encryption
• User-friendly web and mobile interfaces
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of Tutanota

• Closed-source server-side code
• Limited integration with third-party email clients
• Requires users to use Tutanota's ecosystem

Code Comparison

Tutanota (TypeScript):

export function encryptMessage(message: string, publicKey: string): string {
  // Encryption logic
  return encryptedMessage;
}

Hydroxide (Go):

func EncryptMessage(message []byte, publicKey []byte) ([]byte, error) {
    // Encryption logic
    return encryptedMessage, nil
}

Key Differences

• Hydroxide is a bridge for using ProtonMail with any IMAP/SMTP client, while Tutanota is a complete email service
• Tutanota focuses on user-friendly interfaces, while Hydroxide prioritizes compatibility with existing email clients
• Hydroxide is fully open-source, whereas Tutanota has closed-source server components

Use Cases

• Choose Tutanota for a secure, user-friendly email experience with built-in encryption
• Opt for Hydroxide if you prefer using your existing email client while accessing ProtonMail