Earlier quoted context omitted.
> serverless server? This isn’t a contradiction. “Server” is an overloaded term and the “server” in “serverless” refers to a different meaning of “server” than the “email server” bit. “Serverless” means there is no physical or virtual hosts to manage, you just supply the request handler i.e., the email server . It's amusing because it sounds like a contradiction, but it's not one.
So if you get an omelette at a restaurant, I can call it an eggless omelette because I didn’t have to cook the eggs myself?
A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
201–210 of 217 posts
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you link to something where this is a common accepted definition? I'm a systems engineer by trade, talk to a bajillion people about all sort of things and we just don't call a "service in a network" a server in parlance. This seems to be a common point of confusion for people who aren't native English speakers. Oxford English Dictionary defines "server" as: > a computer or computer program which manages access…
> This seems to be a common point of confusion for people who aren't native English speakers Where did this come from and what value does it have, other than being condescending to non-native English speakers? I am a native speaker and we're having a discussion in my native tongue about words in my native language about work I do as a profession. > Similarly, a quick bit of Googling turned up [this][1] I do not accep…
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
?!? I said ISP emails, which a lot of people still use. Outlook/Hotmail are 10mb though. And outlook client is 20mb received.
I'm only trying to help. Like, every PM has used gmail regard it as "normal" - so if you're different, you're abnormal. also, if your PMs listen to reason here's a site with a table https://www.outlook-apps.com/maximum-email-size/ which show the 10MB size at the low-end but still used by a huge carrier
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This flow was designed to take advantage of the S3 trigger system and break each action into a small Lambda. The email flows from S3 => Lambda => SES so the underlying design seems to prohibit sending of emails directly from SES. It sounds like SES could still be used directly, but you then need to add in authorization and user management if you're accessing it externally. It's a cool project and I can envision it…
AFAIK Amazon provides no guarantees that s3 file triggers will actually run, though they 'probably always will'
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I had to check that, but MAIL FROM & RCPT TO are the 'envelope' addresses. > It would be great if somehow the email is forward as it's in so it appear in my inbox and all the information(header) is retain. Yup that's exactly it. In the client reader it looks exactly the same as if it'd been sent there directly, rather than to SES and relayed on. (If you dig into the headers it's all there of course, but just fro…
That's really weird though. I'm really curious to see how did you made it work because I want to make it works too. As I understand, an mail client, like gmail.com web UI, use FROM header to show who send this email(not the MAIL FROM, which apparently is envelop FROM address). So my questions: without ability to changing the FROM header in email, how can your mail client display original sender? because the original…
Correct.
> So my questions: without ability to changing the FROM header in email, how can your mail client display original sender? because the original sender is outside of your domain.
We don't need to change it? We leave FROM exactly as it is on the original email (if we change anything DKIM will fail, since the signature won't match).
Conceptually it's like receiving a secret sealed letter with anti-tampering mechanisms built in, leaving it alone, putting the whole thing in your own envelope and sending it on to the intended recipient who will check the anti-tampering mechanisms.
At the SMTP level I believe the way this works is you connect, say you have MAIL FROM yourself, the relayer, that is RCPT TO your destination Gmail address. After that the entire headers and contents are exactly as received to SES.
> I can only set "FROM: "header to a verified address.
That's not the case, you only need to verify the 'envelope' MAIL FROM address, e.g. relayer@acme.com
> Also, I think MAIL FROM/RCPT TO(Envelop header) rarely being used to show on a mail client.
Yes that's right, but that's what I want. In 'normal' use it looks the same in the client as if the original email had been sent straight there (i.e. in your example, your Gmail set-up to receive for acme.com). If you want to though most clients (incl. Gmail 3 time I used it) do have a menu option somewhere to show you the full raw email, or just the headers, which is helpful for debugging.
> I really hope to make it works. So anyone can send email to my domain, and I can retain their original FROM. like the example above.
Yes, that's exactly how I use it. SES receives for acme.com, dumps the raw email into S3, triggers Lambda. Lambda connects to Gmail (in your case) SMTP server, says it has mail from something-arbitrary@acme.com for kureikain@gmail.com; and then sends the email on from S3.
Are you trying to implement it at SMTP level yourself, or using some lib? I used 'lettre' (rust), and to be honest I haven't checked exactly what commands it sends, so for all I know there could be more to it, a 'I am sending on behalf of someone else' or something.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn’t a contradiction. Yes it is. The "server" in "serverless" means no need to low-level manage/provision a server (computer) and its lifecycle. While "server" in "A serverless email server" means actually "service" as in "A serverless email service on AWS using S3 and SES". Which makes much more sense. The linked repo lets you have an "email server" just like GSuite gives you a "serverless email server".
I don't understand. You insist it's a contradiction but then go on to reiterate my own argument which demonstrates that it is not, in fact, a contradiction but rather using the same term ("server") to refer to two distinct concepts ("computer" vs "service")?
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems to be a common point of confusion for people who aren't native English speakers Where did this come from and what value does it have, other than being condescending to non-native English speakers? I am a native speaker and we're having a discussion in my native tongue about words in my native language about work I do as a profession. > Similarly, a quick bit of Googling turned up [this][1] I do not accep…
Accept the L.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
To which I honestly, just kept my mouth shut and stood aside. I can never keep my mouth shut in these situations. Sometimes it leads to promotions, but I suspect it puts a ceiling on how high I can climb the corporate ladder.
Spent the first 10 years of my IT career driving towards greater control over the systems we managed, because "the reason the service is down is that someone else (usually a vendor) didn't do their job" was never an excuse. The last 5-10 years I've found myself ceding more and more control to cloud service vendors (like Microsoft). Less work for me ("raise a premium case"). Less stress too ("they're working on it, no…
cloud computing is basically batch processing in the mainframe of yesterday from a functional standpoint.
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand. You insist it's a contradiction but then go on to reiterate my own argument which demonstrates that it is not, in fact, a contradiction but rather using the same term ("server") to refer to two distinct concepts ("computer" vs "service")?
It's a contradiction because it's an incorrect overload of the word "server".
Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES
#210This is a brilliant architecture. Everyone here talking about no email clients, IMAP and AWS restrictions is missing the point. Although you could use this as a personal account, or as a company. This fully automated system is a perfect ground layer to a number of applications with a very cleaver API. Say you are a small startup, and you will need some email functionality? Give your web server access to writing to ou…
As somebody who has been an early engineer at many startups, I would never use this in almost any case because a managed solution is just better. If I can pay somebody else to do something hard with zero maintenance so I can focus on shipping a good product, I’m going to do that every time.