6 ms·
> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.
by prmoustache 2y ago
> built on top of AWS SES. [...] can be considered as a self-hosted alternative to services
Someone doesn't really understand self-hosting.
- gwbrooks 2y agoSelf-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.
- layer8 2y agoIt’s misleading to call it an “email platform” you can self-host though.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y agoIt confused you. That doesn’t make it misleading.
- Spivak 2y agoTo most shops, using SES is considered "doing it ourselves" so I somewhat get the characterization. It's very common for self-hosters to use DO, Lightsail, Hetzner because the thing you're hosting is the software. With SES the line between it and SG can be huge if you're using all of SG's high-level features or razor thin if you use SG as SMTP over API.
- kevindamm 2y agoI would say self-hosting is not equivalent to DIY. It's about owning the whole stack, not about bought-vs-made.
- kevindamm 2y agoFurthermore, the thing that complicates the current discussion is with email services in particular, so much depends on reputation and avoiding getting on block-lists. There's also the header wizardry that has become a requirement for interoperating with a lot of large email servers that isn't required for using the protocol but is practically required to ensure delivery. On the flip-side of that, there are those who want the extra amount of customization that can only truly come from owning the entire stack. Or perhaps they already have a high-reputation IP address they have been sending from for years, and a self-hosted solution is necessary to continue with that (barring some transfer of that IP address to the operation of another company). In that case, calling this self-hosted is being disingenuous. In some ways I see the dependency on SES (or other third party provider) as being a benefit for email hosting, especially for a new venture/property. It's why there is some value in depending on other examples of managed services. But I would be clear about that and not call it self-hosted.
- trallnag 2y agoself-hosting does not have to mean that you host the whole stack yourself
- teddyh 2y agoThat is literallly what it means.
- weego 2y agoThis is self hosted. I think we'd all accept that a "self hosted Stripe" that obviously had to offload payment processing to a third party gateway could still be self hosted because the platform is, not every dependency. Volume email is not something you should be looking to 'self host' and would leave the product dead on arrival if it did. It feels like pedantry to critique that aspect so heavily over spirit v letter.
- warkdarrior 2y agoAgreed. I've been self-hosting my email with Gmail for 15 years and it's perfect. /s
- prmoustache 2y agoThis is one thing to have a self hostable platform you can plug to any email infrastructure of you choice, another one to have it dependent on one specific vendor.
- nucleardog 2y agoWhere'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, family, and friends. Is this self-hosting? The entire thing's half-useless without a tiny VPS that provides ingress since I'm behind CGNAT. Speaking of, I've got no way to get bits to and from the internet without my ISPs. I also rely on external services for off-site backups and some other storage. While I run my own IMAP/webmail services, I rely on AWS SES for sending email because managing email deliverability (especially from a shared residential address) is something I just don't have the time and patience for. I think it's generally more useful to take it to mean "taking more control over your dependencies, data and privacy" without drawing a hard line. If someone migrates their social group off of Facebook and on to their own mastadon/something instance running on a VPS somewhere, I don't see any reason to gatekeep the term "self hosting". Making the goal unattainable just discourages people from making positive steps.
- rodolphoarruda 2y agoThe 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.
- nirvdrum 2y agoWhat is an “NNN”? I can guess the general context, but I couldn’t find anything with an Internet search.
- rodolphoarruda 2y agoI'm sorry. That's a triple negative like "no, no, no", an absolute denial.
- driaug 2y agoMost likely you did not answer the questions that are most important to them. - How will you make sure that only subscribed recipients will get your emails - How will you handle bounces and complaints - How will you monitor your sending Don't beat around the bush and you will be approved in less than 1 day.
- bgentry 2y agoResend is also built on top of SES, and yet it's an extra layer of hosted services on top of it. So this is actually a self-hosted alternative to i.e. the functionality that Resend offers, even though there are still other underlying dependencies. Seems like a reasonable way to describe it IMO.
- mirzap 2y agoIt's an open-source marketing platform not an email server.
- andrew_ 2y agowhere does it say it's an email server?
- mervz 2y agoSo 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.
- crote 2y agoSES is an email platform. So Plunk is a self-hosted email platform - which uses a cloud platform to actually send email. If it's not sending email by itself, it's not a self-hosted email platform. 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.
- prmoustache 2y agoIt depends if that 3rd party provider is mandatory or not or if you have the option of having local auth / your own keycloak server, whatever. Once you have an external requirement and not option, it is no longer a self-hostable software.
- fragmede 2y agoif we look at the philosophy behind self-hosting - to be able to host it ourselves, aka not rely on an external party for hosting, that means that if an external party is down or otherwise unavailable, then that line becomes fairly apparent. If 3rd party auth is required, then it's not really self-hosting then is it, because if that third party is down and the software can't be used, then that philosophy is violated. if it's optional, then that's fine though. For something to be considered self-hosted, If the bombs drop and civilization is over and me, and my home lab are the only survivors, can I still use that software? I'd probably have other concerns in that case, like how am I going to survive nuclear winter, but that's where the imaginary line is.
- defrost 2y agoThat certainly rules out all chat, email, and peer to peer software. Other than that, what's your power supply like?