Pros of WebClients

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Broader feature set, including calendar and drive functionality
• Extensive documentation and API support

Cons of WebClients

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to navigate and maintain
• Less focus on mobile-first design compared to Tutanota

Code Comparison

Tutanota (TypeScript):

export function getEtId(mailAddress: string): Id {
  return stringToCustomId(mailAddress.toLowerCase().trim())
}

WebClients (JavaScript):

export const normalizeEmail = (email) => {
    return email.toLowerCase().replace(/\s/g, '');
};

Both projects use similar approaches for email normalization, but Tutanota's implementation includes trimming whitespace and converting to a custom ID format, while WebClients focuses on lowercase conversion and removing all whitespace.

Additional Notes

• Tutanota emphasizes simplicity and a streamlined user experience
• WebClients offers more integrations and third-party app support
• Both projects prioritize security and encryption, but with different implementation approaches

Pros of Berty

• Decentralized architecture, offering enhanced privacy and resistance to censorship
• Supports offline messaging through peer-to-peer communication
• Implements advanced cryptographic protocols for secure group messaging

Cons of Berty

• Still in development, with potential stability issues
• Smaller user base compared to more established messaging platforms
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its decentralized nature

Code Comparison

Tutanota (TypeScript):

export function encryptMessage(message: string, publicKey: Uint8Array): Uint8Array {
    const symmetricKey = crypto.generateSymmetricKey();
    const encryptedMessage = crypto.encryptSymmetric(message, symmetricKey);
    const encryptedKey = crypto.encryptAsymmetric(symmetricKey, publicKey);
    return concatUint8Arrays(encryptedKey, encryptedMessage);
}

Berty (Go):

func (p *Protocol) EncryptMessage(ctx context.Context, message []byte, groupPK []byte) ([]byte, error) {
    group, err := p.getGroupContext(groupPK)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, errcode.ErrInvalidInput.Wrap(err)
    }
    return group.MessageKeystore().EncryptMessage(message)
}

Both projects focus on secure messaging, but Berty's decentralized approach offers unique advantages in terms of privacy and censorship resistance. However, Tutanota's more established platform may provide better stability and ease of use for the average user.

Pros of privacytools.io

• Comprehensive resource for privacy-focused tools and services
• Community-driven project with regular updates and contributions
• Covers a wide range of topics beyond just email privacy

Cons of privacytools.io

• Not a standalone application or service
• Less focused on a specific privacy solution
• May require more user effort to implement recommended tools

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison isn't relevant due to the different nature of these projects, we can look at how they structure their repositories:

privacytools.io:

- _includes/
- _layouts/
- assets/
- pages/
- _config.yml
- index.html

Tutanota:

- src/
- app-android/
- app-ios/
- build/
- package.json
- webpack.config.js

Tutanota is a full-fledged email application with client-side code, while privacytools.io is primarily a website with content and recommendations. Tutanota's repository reflects its nature as a software project, while privacytools.io is structured more like a static website or documentation project.

Pros of Mailpile

• Open-source and self-hostable, giving users full control over their email infrastructure
• Supports multiple email accounts and providers
• Offers a powerful search functionality and tagging system

Cons of Mailpile

• Development has slowed down in recent years
• Less user-friendly interface compared to Tutanota
• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and maintain

Code Comparison

Mailpile (Python):

def _decode_payload(self, part):
    charset = part.get_content_charset() or 'utf-8'
    try:
        return part.get_payload(decode=True).decode(charset)
    except UnicodeDecodeError:
        return part.get_payload(decode=True).decode('utf-8', errors='replace')

Tutanota (TypeScript):

export function decryptMailBody(
	body: string,
	mailBodyKey: Uint8Array,
	encryptedAttachments: ReadonlyArray<TutanotaFile>,
): Promise<string> {
	return aes128Decrypt(mailBodyKey, body, true).then((decrypted) => {
		return replaceCidsWithInlineImages(decrypted, encryptedAttachments)
	})
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling email content. Mailpile focuses on decoding payloads with various character encodings, while Tutanota emphasizes encryption and decryption of mail bodies, reflecting their respective priorities in email handling and security.