Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plunk: The open source email platform

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#81

Post by teddyh »

nucleardog wrote: post #40
teddyh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is literallly what it means.

Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies, so in your usage it seems like an unattainable ideal more-so than a useful phrase anyone could use to convey ideas. In my utility room I've got a box running TrueNAS with a pile of hard-drives serving data over SMB and NFS. I've got a bunch of tiny business desktop PCs all set up in a k3s cluster hosting a variety of services for myself, famil…

Words have meaning. Insisting on proper usage is not gatekeeping. It’s like this with every new word; everybody wants to appropriate it to mean whatever they themselves are doing, in order to unfairly, and dishonestly, capitalize on the value the word signals. See also, for example, “ecological”, or “open source”. And they all complain about gatekeeping when they are called out, too.

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#82

Post by nucleardog »

teddyh wrote: post #81
nucleardog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies, so in your usage it seems like an unattainable ideal more-so than a useful phrase anyone could use to convey ideas. In my utility room I've got a box running TrueNAS with a pile of hard-drives serving data over SMB and NFS. I've got a bunch of tiny business desktop PCs all set up in a k3s cluster hosting a variety of services for myself, famil…

Words have meaning. Insisting on proper usage is not gatekeeping. It’s like this with every new word; everybody wants to appropriate it to mean whatever they themselves are doing, in order to unfairly, and dishonestly, capitalize on the value the word signals. See also, for example, “ecological”, or “open source”. And they all complain about gatekeeping when they are called out, too.

The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them and how they're understood by others.

"Full control over the whole stack, full stop, no exceptions" is not how people generally use or understand the term "self hosting", and if we were to prescriptively define it as that it would make self hosting unattainable and useless as a term.

I proposed a useful way to draw the line. How would you propose we define it?

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#83

Post by teddyh »

nucleardog wrote: post #82
teddyh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have meaning. Insisting on proper usage is not gatekeeping. It’s like this with every new word; everybody wants to appropriate it to mean whatever they themselves are doing, in order to unfairly, and dishonestly, capitalize on the value the word signals. See also, for example, “ecological”, or “open source”. And they all complain about gatekeeping when they are called out, too.

The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them and how they're understood by others. "Full control over the whole stack, full stop, no exceptions" is not how people generally use or understand the term "self hosting", and if we were to prescriptively define it as that it would make self hosting unattainable and useless as a term. I proposed a useful way to draw the line. How would you propose we define i…

IMHO, unless you own the hardware, it’s not “self-hosting”.

IMHO, unless you have said hardware running in a location under your personal control (i.e. a room, building or house you either own or rent), it’s not “self-hosting”.

Both of these are not unattainable, or were not so in the relatively recent past.

But I will concede that it’s not always easy to distinguish in the gray zones. It’s like where you sleep. The differences are gradual from “owning”, “renting”, “apartment by the week”, “dorms”, “hotel room”, “airbnb”, “hostel”, “flophouse”, “tent”, “homeless”. Which of these constitutes a “home”? Opinions vary.

That said, however, resorting to “The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them” is also something which people arguing in bad faith almost always do.

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#84

Post by dandigangi »

bgentry wrote: post #75
dandigangi wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I recently took over engineering at Postmark. Noted! Thanks for the feedback.

I understand this change might be a large undertaking to implement across the entire API, and although it would be good to do everywhere, it’s primarily just the send email API that needs it.

I like the idea. Staff engineer and I discussed a bit. Added something to our backlog so we don't lose track of it.

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#85

Post by dandigangi »

johtso wrote: post #74
Sytten wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you are here, I have been asking for years to have better access control on API keys so they can only use assigned servers. So my staging cant send prod emails...

API tokens are server specific aren't they?

They are!

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#86

Post by nucleardog »

teddyh wrote: post #83
nucleardog wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaning of words is defined by the people that use them and how they're understood by others. "Full control over the whole stack, full stop, no exceptions" is not how people generally use or understand the term "self hosting", and if we were to prescriptively define it as that it would make self hosting unattainable and useless as a term. I proposed a useful way to draw the line. How would you propose we define i…

IMHO, unless you own the hardware, it’s not “self-hosting”. IMHO, unless you have said hardware running in a location under your personal control (i.e. a room, building or house you either own or rent), it’s not “self-hosting”. Both of these are not unattainable, or were not so in the relatively recent past. But I will concede that it’s not always easy to distinguish in the gray zones. It’s like where you sleep. The…

You said self hosting means you own the entire stack yourself.

What makes "the hardware and the physical location" anything but arbitrary in terms of that? Why is that "the whole stack"? Why is the hardware and location more important than how I, or anyone else in the world, actually accesses it, when basically all of us are relying on some external party for internet access? What justifies a line that prevents me from deriding anything as "not self hosting" if someone hasn't set up their own tier 1 network?

Why does putting a server in my house, but relying on an ISP, an external box for access, and a bunch of other stuff count as "self hosting" but sticking an old rack mount server at a friend's place because they have symmetric gigabit fibre and my acreage has 5/0.3 DSL not self hosting?

Why would purchasing a server and colocating it at a data centre with a fully encrypted drive be less "self hosting" than putting a raspberry pi in my utility room behind tailscale to bypass the CGNAT? How is putting a server in a data centre different than putting it in a rented apartment?

If I run a MUD on my laptop that's online whenever I check in to a hostel and have internet, am I self-hosting the MUD? If I'm not, who would you say is hosting it?

Circling back to my original comment--what is the actual benefit to "your own hardware on property you own"? Is it "taking control over your dependencies, data, and privacy"? Because then anything that accomplishes that should probably be included on a spectrum of self hosting. Somebody hosting a matrix server on an Digital Ocean VPS as a social network for their friends is still closer to that goal than somebody setting up a Discord server. Somebody hosting a Kubernetes cluster in their closet on a residental ISP is closer. Somebody racking a bunch of gear at a DC is closer.

There's no reason to tell any of these people "you're doing it wrong".

On a separate note: I feel I've got a fair point here, one that you've practically admitted in your own comment. Going on to strongly imply I'm arguing in bad faith really came across as a dick move.

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#87

Post by nucleardog »

prmoustache wrote: post #57
nucleardog wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies, so in your usage it seems like an unattainable ideal more-so than a useful phrase anyone could use to convey ideas. In my utility room I've got a box running TrueNAS with a pile of hard-drives serving data over SMB and NFS. I've got a bunch of tiny business desktop PCs all set up in a k3s cluster hosting a variety of services for myself, famil…

> Where's the line, then? You're always going to have external dependencies uh no. Only if you choose to.

You running a Tier 1 Network from your house?

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#89

Post by andrew_ »

mirzap wrote: post #38
prmoustache wrote: post #7

> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.

It's an open-source marketing platform not an email server.

where does it say it's an email server?

Re: Plunk: The open source email platform

#90

Post by albertgoeswoof »

bgentry wrote: post #24

Having recently adopted Resend and skimmed a bunch of different email APIs, I'm still waiting to find a single provider whose API supports Stripe-style idempotency [1] so that I can guarantee I don't send the same email through their API multiple times. I'd like to confidently avoid accidentally spamming a user if i.e. a background job retries multiple times due to an unrelated error, or merely from failing to receiv…

Probably too late, but we support this over at mailpace.com

https://docs.mailpace.com/guide/idempotency

Post reply on HN