Live data from Hacker News

Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

github.com

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#121

It remains a constant frustration to me that Postfix, Exim, Cyrus, Dovecot and the like still feel as if they belong very much in the "here be dragons" territories of the Unix world. Configuring these systems is an exercise in constant frustration and bafflement. They're such a pain to use that since becoming the sysadmin in charge of our work email servers, I gave up running personal ones as well and just pay FastMa…

Part of the problem is that many years ago certain people decided it would be a good idea to tightly couple email to domain names (DNS). Previously email needed only IP addresses to work.

The result is that now when you are configuring SMTP you have to also configure DNS. That means more things that can go wrong, and more things to check as you are setting things up.

It also means you may need to pay a fee for a domain name. This is because we all submit to the notion of an ICANN root and commercial registrars selling (renting) names that cost nothing to create. Thus email is not solely under your control. You generally have to play the ICANN DNS game, only because your email recipients are playing. Nothing stops anyone from running their own root though. And this is what is done with private DNS inside organizations.

And then, as if that DNS complication was not already enough to take control of email away from you, you have various schemes trying to prevent spam that discriminate for or against mail you send based on IP address and domain name.

Can you operate email without DNS? Technically yes. There was a time before DNS, and email worked just fine. Practically speaking, today you need DNS, whether it's under ICANN's root or your own.

All this hassle steers you to just accept third party email hosting. Profiting from this arrangement has become a career for many a man. And with "the cloud" many are hoping to cash in yet again, as organizations who once ran controlled own email feel pressured to let a cloud computing vendor control it for them.

The fact that all this third party control makes warrantless search and surveillance so easy is but one side effect. Centralising hundreds and thousands of accounts in third parties make the spammer's job easier, too. If you think about it, there are many unwanted side effects of centralizing email. When every sender and recipient are connected directly to each other via a network, why would you want to prevent them from sending messages to each other directly?

With the constant connectivity and bandwidth we have today in many places, the centralisation and outsourcing of email is baffling to me... it is nonsensical... until you remember how much of a PITA it is setting up email.:)

It's no wonder we let third parties handle it. Is this PITA by design? Who cares? Let's just fix it. More of these projects should exist. Or made public (I imagine many of these are personal setups now being released for public use). I have my own that uses qmail.

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#122

It remains a constant frustration to me that Postfix, Exim, Cyrus, Dovecot and the like still feel as if they belong very much in the "here be dragons" territories of the Unix world. Configuring these systems is an exercise in constant frustration and bafflement. They're such a pain to use that since becoming the sysadmin in charge of our work email servers, I gave up running personal ones as well and just pay FastMa…

I also find them baffling and frustrating. It seems that senior sysadmins are fond of "But email is so easy", and I'm sure it is... once you already have your battle-scars (I'm finding Buildbot lies in the same category). Another sysadmin friend of mine says that setting up your own proper mailserver should be a rite of passage before you can call yourself a sysadmin.

Edit: it's not so much that it's about configuring Application X, but that there are so many moving parts, from local aliases to firewall fun to DNS entries. Then there's the fun of 'deliverability', greylisting and so forth.

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#123

It remains a constant frustration to me that Postfix, Exim, Cyrus, Dovecot and the like still feel as if they belong very much in the "here be dragons" territories of the Unix world. Configuring these systems is an exercise in constant frustration and bafflement. They're such a pain to use that since becoming the sysadmin in charge of our work email servers, I gave up running personal ones as well and just pay FastMa…

Part of the problem is that many years ago certain people decided it would be a good idea to tightly couple email to domain names (DNS). Previously email needed only IP addresses to work. The result is that now when you are configuring SMTP you have to also configure DNS. That means more things that can go wrong, and more things to check as you are setting things up. It also means you may need to pay a fee for a doma…

What? It was so much better when we used ip addresses in e-mail addresses?

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#124
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that many years ago certain people decided it would be a good idea to tightly couple email to domain names (DNS). Previously email needed only IP addresses to work. The result is that now when you are configuring SMTP you have to also configure DNS. That means more things that can go wrong, and more things to check as you are setting things up. It also means you may need to pay a fee for a doma…

What? It was so much better when we used ip addresses in e-mail addresses?

Are we discussing control of email, or aesthetics of email?

If you want to use names instead of numbers, then you can do that. You and your recipient must use the same DNS root.

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#125

It remains a constant frustration to me that Postfix, Exim, Cyrus, Dovecot and the like still feel as if they belong very much in the "here be dragons" territories of the Unix world. Configuring these systems is an exercise in constant frustration and bafflement. They're such a pain to use that since becoming the sysadmin in charge of our work email servers, I gave up running personal ones as well and just pay FastMa…

Part of the problem is that many years ago certain people decided it would be a good idea to tightly couple email to domain names (DNS). Previously email needed only IP addresses to work. The result is that now when you are configuring SMTP you have to also configure DNS. That means more things that can go wrong, and more things to check as you are setting things up. It also means you may need to pay a fee for a doma…

DNS is not the issue with mail and MTAs. Setting up an MX record is something you can do after googling and reading for about ten minutes. I have only anecdotal evidence to prove this, but that's basically how I set up my own first mail server.

What was a lot more difficult was setting up the actual mailserver itself. Even a simple, two-mailbox-operation was an exercise in frustration when it came to trying to get mail working on a little VPS of mine. Shit, you have to make the sendmail config. How balls-out insane is that?

More recently, there's little working tutorials to get yourself a working dovecot/postfix server, which are relatively easy to understand (thanks, digitalocean!) but I just checked out the first one I found on my google search and it's 2,800 words long. 20 pages if you were to print it out dead-tree style. I can give you a tutorial on DNS and MX records in much less time than it would take to go through setting up any MTA on linux, and that's the trouble.

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#126
post #71

It remains a constant frustration to me that Postfix, Exim, Cyrus, Dovecot and the like still feel as if they belong very much in the "here be dragons" territories of the Unix world. Configuring these systems is an exercise in constant frustration and bafflement. They're such a pain to use that since becoming the sysadmin in charge of our work email servers, I gave up running personal ones as well and just pay FastMa…

It is very much "here be dragons" but a lot of that is because of legacy compatibility issues from when mail was delivered directly to local users. If you don't care about local access (IMAP & POP is good enough, no mutt to the mail spool for you) Dovecot is a huge improvement on everything else. You configure it to listen directly for LMTP and use MySQL for user information and Maildir for data it's almost as easy a…

[deleted]

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#127

Be aware: Rackspace (and surely many other cloud server providers) intentionally submit their IP blocks to DNS blacklists to dissuade spammers from using their hosts to send/relay mail. I'm not sure if the other big players do this but it wouldn't surprise me. Same goes for most consumer-class cable modem ISPs.

Most of Digital Ocean droplets have their IP blocked. I spent several hours last week configuring a mail server only to find out my email were being rejected from hotmail and godaddy.

what was your solution? Others in this thread have mentioned the ability to remove IPs from the ban lists, did you pursue that?

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#128
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember many people running their own SMTP server used to have massive issues with their outgoing mail being silently or non-silently ignored or sent to the spam folder. Does this take care of this? "Mostly" really isn't good enough. Frankly I've had mixed results over several years of hosting my own personal email server, even with a valid PTR, SPF, and DKIM. Most SMB and personal email systems I interact with…

My only issue in the last 2 years was with Gmail, which I eventually discovered on accident was apparently because of my lack of appropriate ipv6 records in my SPF tag. I didn't catch it for a while because so much of the email world simply assumes ipv4, but traffic happily exits my ipv6 interface when the destination supports it.

Gmail now also requires IPv6 rDNS for inbound mail servers - that caught me out for a few days when it was implemented.

Not a problem with a good ISP but many retail ISPs don't have a process for maintaining rDNS to arbitrary blocks held by subscribers.

Re: Mail-in-a-box: easy to set up modern SMTP/SMTPS server stack

#130
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Postfix is actually a beautiful piece of software Couldn't agree more. I've also learned a ton from the source code. If anyone has even a passing interest in security, i'd highly recommend browsing the postfix source code.

No. Just no. The architecture is, at best, an anachronism. Designs of much more elegance have been explored (qmail). But as a matter of fact, neither postfix, nor qmail, nor exim, nor (god forbid) sendmail belong into our day and age anymore (I have run 3 of them at scale). A modern MTA is way overdue. Please keep writing MTAs kids! In modern languages. Until you get one right. Thanks!

Sorry moe but yes, just yes. It's rock solid, battle hardened, has a fantastic security record, is extremely resource efficient, has gobs of up to date and useful documentation, an active mailing list, a primary author who's stuck with it since conception (unlike DJB) and offers enough flexibility to reliably support virtually any mail setup you care to dream up.

I can't see why in the world anyone would advocate throwing all of that in the bin and adopting something new, flashy and unproven that happens to be written in go/rust/node/other language du jour? I mean why? So we can write configs in JSON and get a 'free batteries included' web management console for monitoring queue lengths?

Post reply on HN