BTW, there is soo much FUD in your comment, check http://www.postfix.org/ before claiming "someone will hack your email"
"""
First of all, thank you for your interest in the Postfix project.
What is Postfix? It is Wietse Venema's mail server that started life at IBM research as an alternative to the widely-used Sendmail program. Now at Google, Wietse continues to support Postfix.
Postfix attempts to be fast, easy to administer, and secure.
"""
EDIT 2: I don't understand why other comments are so agressive against the author for sharing how he runs his own mail server, I'm not sure if it comes from one's frustration, failures, unreasonable expectations about email, but I noticed that everything related to servers or email receives this hate (here on HN, eh?). Come on, let's start a new year where we appreciate someone sharing their experience in running a mail server :-)
Nice! Thanks for the hard work everyone involved! I have nothing to complain, things just works for me so far, but great to see improvements in the pipe! :D
> ... multi region. Cheapest and quickest option if you want to have at least some fault tolerance.
That is simple not true, you have to adapt your application to be multi region aware to start with, and if you do that on AWS you are basically locked-in, and one of the most expensive cloud providers out there.
Excuse me, do we need all that complexity? Telling that it is "hard" is justifiable?
It is naive to assume people bashing AWS are uncapable to running things better, cheaper, faster, across many other vendors, on-prem, colocation or what not.
> Outrage is the easy response.
That is what made AWS get the marketshare it has now in the first place, the easy responses.
The main selling point of AWS in the beginning was "how easy is to sping a virtual machine". After basically every layman started recommending AWS and we flocked there, AWS started making things more complex than it should. Was that to make harder to get out of it? IDK.
> Empathy and learning is the valuable one.
When you run your infrastructure and something fails and you are not transparent, your users will bash you, independently who you are.
And that was another "easy response" used to drive companies towards AWS. We developers were echoing that "having a infrastructure team or person is not necessary", etc.
Now we are stuck in this learned helplessness where every outage is a complete disaster in terms of transparency, multiple services failing, even for multi-region and multi-az customers, we saying "this service here is also not working" and AWS simple states that service was fine, not affected, up and running.
If it was a sysadmin doing that, people will be asking for his/her neck with pitchforks.
Not to mention the amount of garbage in the cloud, the constant learned helplessness that we have to endure even knowing that the situation could have been avoided or even mitigated/solved if the access to the box was possible.
The status-quo of the cloud is uninspiring to say the least...
> Why hasn't the industry come up with an alternative?
We used to have that, some companies still have the capability and know-how to build and run infrastructure that is reliable, distributed across many hosting providers before "cloud" became the "norm", but it goes along with "use or lose it".