Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last time I tried to use Sendy with SES I received a NNN from AWS after I stating I would be using it for email marketing (MailChimp alternative). It seems that my "self-hosting" idea was cancelled by a 3rd party.
What is an “NNN”? I can guess the general context, but I couldn’t find anything with an Internet search.
Plunk: The open source email platform
41–50 of 91 posts
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#42> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.
Self-hosting the mail-composing, mail-merging and tracking functions while using third-party SMTP is well-trod territory. The former can be done on a pretty basic box and the latter, at scale, is a heavy lift. My guess is Plunk is for people who need a Mailchimp-like offering at a lower-than-Mailchimp price point.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#43Based on the title I thought it was something I could selfhost on my own metal, but the first sentence says > Plunk is an open-source email platform built on top of AWS SES. I’m out. That’s everything I needed to know about this project to never look at it again.
You host it yourself. It's an email marketing platform (not an email server), but you use AWS SES as an email infrastructure because it is cheap and reliable. You cannot build or host your own infrastructure since emails are hard these days, you use AWS SES or alternative to send emails like most of these services and apps do. It's so easy to get blocked or blacklisted by other email providers.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#44Based on the title I thought it was something I could selfhost on my own metal, but the first sentence says > Plunk is an open-source email platform built on top of AWS SES. I’m out. That’s everything I needed to know about this project to never look at it again.
You host it yourself. It's an email marketing platform (not an email server), but you use AWS SES as an email infrastructure because it is cheap and reliable. You cannot build or host your own infrastructure since emails are hard these days, you use AWS SES or alternative to send emails like most of these services and apps do. It's so easy to get blocked or blacklisted by other email providers.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
You host it yourself. It's an email marketing platform (not an email server), but you use AWS SES as an email infrastructure because it is cheap and reliable. You cannot build or host your own infrastructure since emails are hard these days, you use AWS SES or alternative to send emails like most of these services and apps do. It's so easy to get blocked or blacklisted by other email providers.
The wording is awkward and suboptimal. If you don't know what AWS SES is, you'd easily get the wrong impression. In fact, I'd even say it's factually incorrect. It's not built on top of AWS SES. It's built to utilize AWS SES for its functionality. Slightly different, pedantic really.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#46Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#47> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.
I'm curious to know where you draw your imaginary line.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-hosting the mail-composing, mail-merging and tracking functions while using third-party SMTP is well-trod territory. The former can be done on a pretty basic box and the latter, at scale, is a heavy lift. My guess is Plunk is for people who need a Mailchimp-like offering at a lower-than-Mailchimp price point.
It’s misleading to call it an “email platform” you can self-host though.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#49I can't see anything in the docs about it.
Re: Plunk: The open source email platform
#50> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.
So if an application uses a 3rd party provider for authentication (Google, Github, etc) is this no longer considered "self-hosted", despite it running on user's hardware? I'm curious to know where you draw your imaginary line.
Those apps using 3rd party auth providers almost universally have them as an optional plugin, allowing you to choose one of a dozen auth providers or your own self-hosted one. You're not tied to any specific 3rd party platform, and rarely tied to any 3rd party platform at all.