A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
1–10 of 266 posts
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#2Thanks for putting this together and documenting it so well. I’ve had to build this solution twice now, and far less elegantly.
The S3 PUT charges caught me off guard the first time (receiving lots of marketing/spam email will cost $1/1000 emails). I ended up putting small emails up to 400 kB in dynamoDB and only using S3 for large emails and attachments, which could be a means of cost reduction in this solution as well.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#3Yes this is legit! Got it to work on a throwaway domain under 30 minutes.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#4What about email signing?
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#5I don't know anything about serverless --- to this day I fail to understand what this word is even supposed to mean. And the deployment diagram[1] sure looks complicated to me. I think I prefer old-school servers.
[1]: " rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/0x4447/0x4447-product-s3-e...
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#6I don't know anything about serverless --- to this day I fail to understand what this word is even supposed to mean. And the deployment diagram[1] sure looks complicated to me. I think I prefer old-school servers. [1]: " rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/0x4447/0x4447-product-s3-e...
The term serverless is such a misnomer.
While this is a cool project, you'd use 3 different servers at a minimum here.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#7I don't know anything about serverless --- to this day I fail to understand what this word is even supposed to mean. And the deployment diagram[1] sure looks complicated to me. I think I prefer old-school servers. [1]: " rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/0x4447/0x4447-product-s3-e...
It's fairly simple, though maybe you mean you don't understand why it's good (or if it is), rather than what it is.
But all it means is "we manage the server, both physically but also its operating system, you just bring your application code and we'll run it".
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#8I don't know anything about serverless --- to this day I fail to understand what this word is even supposed to mean. And the deployment diagram[1] sure looks complicated to me. I think I prefer old-school servers. [1]: " rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/0x4447/0x4447-product-s3-e...
"serverless" is just "managed hosting" under a new name, I believe.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#9I don't know anything about serverless --- to this day I fail to understand what this word is even supposed to mean. And the deployment diagram[1] sure looks complicated to me. I think I prefer old-school servers. [1]: " rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/0x4447/0x4447-product-s3-e...
The benefits to using this approach over a traditional server are:
1. Someone else maintains the software running these services, including OS upgrades, security upgrades and patches, uptime monitoring, etc.
2. Since every logical component is an independent service, each scaling independently, any one single component is unlikely to become a bottle-neck while scaling. In traditional monolithic servers, you'll have to have contingency plans if you beat storage/network/CPU/RAM limits
3. The closest thing to this is to break up a monolithic email server into microservices and deploy them as independently scalable containers, which is a considerable engineering effort.
Assuming this works as advertised, you can go from zero to a full blown email service for organizations with thousands of people (assuming the stated AWS limits are lifted), in record time
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#10How does this compare to setting up something like sendy (sendy.co) on lightsail and connecting to SES?