$0.35 per 1,000 outbound emails. Unlimited inbound emails. How's that compare?
AWS SES is 10ct per 1000 emails (same price for inbound + outbound) but you also need to pay for attachments etc.
Cloudflare Email Service
181–190 of 217 posts
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty good pricing. Currently using ZeptoMail ($2.5 per 10,000 emails) but if this service by Cloudflare proves reliable once it reaches GA I'd be happy to switch.
Why not use SES?
Nothing I could do could convince them that I wasn't trying to do 'bad' stuff. Just gave up and decided not to use any AWS tech.
Just used GMail api to send email.
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#183I'm not sure why this announcement has generated so much irritation in the comments-- Cloudflare has been transitioning from "DDoS protection" to "AWS competitor" for many years now, and this is just their alternative to AWS SES. It's an email sender that you can access through an API, or directly through Workers. For those who haven't been keeping up over the years, Workers is their product for running code on Cloud…
c. 2022 Cloudflare had a free email sending service (via MailChannels) [0] until it was sunset in Aug 2024 [1].
[0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/sending-email-from-workers-with-...
[1] https://support.mailchannels.com/hc/en-us/articles/456589835... / https://archive.vn/xNLzv
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#184> Everyone already has an email address, which means everyone can already interact with your application or agent. And your agent can interact with anyone. please no. > Sending email that actually reaches inboxes usually means wrestling with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records. When you add your domain to Email Service, we configure all of it automatically. Your emails are authenticated and delivered, not flagged as spam. t…
That's what potential buyers are counting on. Pricing is decent, but imho that is the true value proposition here.
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#185It's next to impossible to get approved on Amazon SES now vs 10 years ago. I don't know why its so ridiculous difficult to use it for transactional verificaiton emails.
I see AWS screwing up and Cloudflare replacing it.
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#186Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blog author chiming in here: We have reserved IPs for Email Service and will be protecting the reputation and fighting spam from originating on Email Service. If we did not do so, our IPs would get flagged and then emails end up in spam or not delivered. That defeats the purpose of having a transactional Email Service. We're well aware of this.
Will you also do this for other spammers using Cloudflare infrastructure, or just specifically for this email product? > For years, Spamhaus has observed abusive activity facilitated by Cloudflare’s various services. Cybercriminals have been exploiting these legitimate services to mask activities and enhance their malicious operations, a tactic referred to as living off trusted services (LOTS) [2]. > With 1201 unreso…
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#188Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#189I can use this to set up my own custom mail service, like an alternative to gmail? Or at the very least, my own personal mail provider?
Re: Cloudflare Email Service
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but what about as a CDN/website-proxy/WAF? I know we don't have the same automated reputation-propagation as with email, but same thing supposedly happens there, where eventually you get turned off if you don't act on lawful requests, which is exactly why Cloudflare is unavailable in Spain during La Liga matches, because Cloudflare don't take piracy streams down. In theory, Cloudflare should take those down, when…
I run an email sending service at scale (billions of messages per month, tens of millions of end users, thousands of customers). Most of our software development and operational effort revolves around abuse mitigation. That has been the case for 15 years. It's a cat-and-mouse game with two different mice: the senders, who are constantly trying to figure out how to get you to deliver their garbage; and the receivers,…
Giving you the benefit of the doubt and accepting your claim, doesn't that make you one of the people at least second-order responsible for the current state of affairs in email blocking? It would seem that your company, by dint of your volume, navigates roadblocks that the rest of us (ie. the 99.999% of Internet email servers and their admins), who aren't FAANG et al[1], have to deal with to get our users' legitimate email delivered.
If so, could you perhaps give us a brief explanation as to why an otherwise competent engineer can "follow all the best practices" with their server which has no known compromises[2], on an IP address they have controlled for, oh, let's say a full calendar year, and yet still can't get off those FAANG et al default-deny blocklists, but you can?[3]
A cynic might say that your service had a vested interest in paying for unimpeded access to those FAANG et al companies to get over the bar that the rest of us are unable to vault. A cynic might also say that those biggest of the big email services like it that way, because it drives more users to them at the expense of the rest of us 99.999%.
I'll try to remain open to the possibility that there are aspects of the industry I've not yet had any exposure to, and refrain from chimping out over having my users blocked through no fault of their own.
[1] Yes, I know, Facebook doesn't receive anywhere near as much email as they send, and Hotmail = Microsoft, etc. If I used an accurate acronym I could pat myself on the back for being Technically Correct, while nobody would know what the heck I was talking about.
[2] We shan't digress into a discussion of hardware/firmware/OS/application backdoors nor Snowden disclosures. It's not that hard to auto-install security updates and run a reasonably tight ship with no unnecessary attack surfaces.
[3] Or perhaps there aren't any default-deny blocklists at all, but in fact only much smaller default-allow whitelists? That would be cynical indeed.