Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting email like it's 1984

maxadamski.com

51–60 of 190 posts

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#51

Where is UUCP? Why are addresses not bang paths? Where is sendmail.cf?

Those wore the days :-) I remember playing on a University lab with half a dozen Unix workstations, sending an email with the path of server1!server2!server3 etc and hearing the email flowing from server to server by the noise of the disks!

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#52

Where is UUCP? Why are addresses not bang paths? Where is sendmail.cf?

Right. You better not self-host like it's 1984 because that would also mean you're an open relay. And vulnerable for pretty much anything you can think of.

This config doesn’t make an open relay.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I self-hosted for well over 20 years, I did not throw the towel and I do not plan to. Self-hosting is a sign of pride. Neither my government nor my Prime Minister nor even my Ministry of Interior or Foreign Ministry can host their own email. Last time I checked, only State Security self-hosted. I was probably lucky, but I rarely had delivery problems. The last one was a couple years ago with Microsoft swallowing my e…

> Neither my government nor my Prime Minister nor even my Ministry of Interior or Foreign Ministry can host their own email. Can or wish to?

From what I know, it's worse. They are afraid of IT departments owning their infrastructure. They'd rather have a US-based megacorp handle IT because it shield politicians from craftsmen and their realisation of power.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#54
post #22

Say I want to test the waters for selfhosting email, and I already have my how domains setup with SaaS like Google workspace and equivalent. Is there a way to setup mx records so that both google and my own server gets email for a while? This would be useful to test the waters over a few months before fully migrating

You can set up a lower-priority MX to point to Google, so if your server fails, then email is delivered to Google. But if your server is misconfigured and returns permanent 5xx errors for legitimate emails, then it won't work, and the emails won't be delivered to Google.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#55
post #22

Say I want to test the waters for selfhosting email, and I already have my how domains setup with SaaS like Google workspace and equivalent. Is there a way to setup mx records so that both google and my own server gets email for a while? This would be useful to test the waters over a few months before fully migrating

No easy answer here. Individual MTAs or a cluster of them typically live under one unique domain. In your scenario, you'd have to point your existing records (or just MX) to your self-hosted instance, and have your self-hosted instance relay/autoforward to Gmail under a different domain. This might entail simply setting your Gmail back to @gmail.com.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#56
post #26

Not sure why someone would go through the pain of cobbling up a self hosted solution based on Postfix when you have fully integrated solutions like https://stalw.art/ , which are a breeze to setup.

Because postfix is foss, will work with everything and for all time and if there's a problem with it you'll actually be able to fix it.

I thought Stalwart’s license, AGPL is foss.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#57
(had to dug my comment from under a flagged parent)

I self-hosted for well over 20 years, I did not throw the towel and I do not plan to. Self-hosting is a sign of pride. Neither my government nor my Prime Minister nor even my Ministry of Interior or Foreign Ministry can host their own email.

Last time I checked, only State Security self-hosted.

I was probably lucky, but I rarely had delivery problems. The last one was a couple years ago with Microsoft swallowing my emails and it was due to the combination of a fairly old exim and a TLS certificate verification quirk at *.protection.outlook.com. I found a fix in the form of a configuration option somewhere on SO.

In all fairness, there is very little maintenance involved, and whenever I have to do maintenance work, I take the opportunity to learn something new. Like this year, I decided to finally replace my aging Debian jessie setup by Arch Linux, and I rewrote all cron jobs as systemd timers.

I must admit that when I send a really important email, I check the mail server log if it went off without errors, but this does not bother me as checking logs manually once in a while is a good thing anyway.

Lastly, a piece of advice: treat self-hosting like a hobby and learn to enjoy it.

Oh and the very last thing: the person who designed Exim configuration for Debian deserves a special place in hell for all the hours wasted. If you set up Exim on Debian, just figure out how to use the upstream exim config and adapt it to your needs.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#58
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. You better not self-host like it's 1984 because that would also mean you're an open relay. And vulnerable for pretty much anything you can think of.

This config doesn’t make an open relay.

A typical config from 1984 is an open relay and vulnerable to the Morris Worm.

Re: Self-hosting email like it's 1984

#59
I used to do this. What finally killed it wasn't reputation, it was the fact that I needed 100% uptime or risk losing messages, getting my address blacklisted, etc. Email is supposed to be resilient to down time (retries, trying each MX record, etc.) but I found that large mail providers tend to just bounce and walk away.

Worse, GitHub (back in 2016 and 2018) would mark a recipient as "unavailable" after a single bounce, refusing to send any more notifications to that address. They since improved the situation and their support was actually very helpful and responsive here, but it's pretty clear that modern SMTP senders have an expectation that recipients will be "always online" that didn't exist when the protocol was invented.

Post reply on HN