News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by crimsonnoodle58 on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @04:38AM (#48291411)
> Nobody wants to run a mail server in 2026.

We do, and thats why we use Postal [1].

The more SaaS applications that self-host email the better. It forces the big guys, ie Microsoft, to improve their blocklists and not lazily block entire ranges. Yes its work contacting them occasionally, but it keeps the internet open. The alternative is an internet where they control it all.

1. https://docs.postalserver.io/

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by quality_life on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:14AM (#48293071)
Security is the main worry when hosting email servers, not just of the email service, but also in preventing attacks via email. Antivirus integration is available with Postal. May be it is a good idea to chain multiple antivirus solutions. Instead of just expecting that Google or Microsoft would prevent malicious email, Postal may enable better control and transparency.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by gnabgib on Thursday May 28, 2026 @12:18AM (#48304449)
No, this isn't a worry. Where are you sourcing this? "not just the email service, but also preventing attacks via email".. is saying the same thing, in a rather GPT style.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by quality_life on Thursday May 28, 2026 @01:09AM (#48304803)
Hey, disagree with me, if you will. Please don't say what I am saying is GPT style. Very insulting.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by twooclock on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @07:51AM (#48292857)
Can't agree more. Thank you for standing up! I'm doing it for 20yrs (currently with mail-in-a-box) and only wish more people were doing it.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by craigmccaskill on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @04:53AM (#48291513)
Fair. Don't disagree with anything you're saying here.

I should probably tighten up that line. What I really meant to say is that the average self-hoster who just wants to enable a few services to send email doesn't want to run a mail server. Different audiences, different (and both correct) answers.

I set out to solve some pretty specific problems of my own but I'm genuinely curious how others have tackled these things. Posthorn and Postal don't compete in my head. Postal makes you into your own provider, which is something I personally deeply want to avoid. Posthorn assumes you've already picked a provider (which might be Postal, actually, it would work just fine pointed at a self-hosted Postal instance).

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by embedding-shape on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @05:34AM (#48291795)
> the average self-hoster who just wants to enable a few services to send email doesn't want to run a mail server

Maybe I'm confused, maybe the label "self-hoster" is broader than the definition in my mind, but that's exactly what self-hosters want to do, that's why we call ourselves self-hosters, we want to host the stuff we use ourselves :)

If I just wanted to "enable a few services" I'd use AWS or whatever the modern alternatives are.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by tclancy on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @06:29AM (#48292148)
I think you are confused. I self-host a ton of stuff. One thing I have zero interest in is hosting mail and dealing with all of the configuration and possible timebombs waiting before I can even do the single thing I want the service to do. Instead I pay like $5/month for essentially unlimited emails from any domain I control.

That said, none of it has to do with my own personal email, which has been on Gmail for long enough to drink, so we are probably talking about two different situations.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by embedding-shape on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @06:43AM (#48292226)
I think the label "self-hoster" might be overly broad in these sort of discussions. Some people considering firing up a VPS and running something like Posthorn "self-hosting" email, just like a bunch of "modern" AI tooling says "local-first" because the CLI runs locally, although all LLM models are remotely called.

Seems to me like there a broad spectrum of "self-hosters", ranging from "I run everything on my hardware in my home" to "I deploy FOSS SaaS software to AWS for us to run", probably neither of these are more/less "self-hosting" than the other.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by tclancy on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:08AM (#48293018)
Damnit, sunk by the T.S. Eliot thing again: “It is impossible to say just what I mean”. I host a bunch of services on a handful of machines locally. The main one of which died two weeks ago and is waiting on a new SSD drive so we can properly test whether the Anible playbook Claude put together for me will spin nine or ten services right back up or whether it’s going to be perfected for the third time I have to build the machine.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by craigmccaskill on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @05:44AM (#48291855)
> If I just wanted to enable a few services I'd use AWS or whatever

But then you'd be using AWS for those services too.

I think there's a meaningful gap between folks who are willing and able to self host their own applications but have decided that running their own MTA is a separate and much harder commitment. Different line, but still self-hosting in any reasonable read of the term. I've been on both sides of that line at one point, I'm trying to avoid going back. :)

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by embedding-shape on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @05:58AM (#48291962)
> But then you'd be using AWS for those services too.

Yes, so obviously as a self-hoster, that's a no-go. Hence not wanting "to enable a few services", it'd go directly counter to the initial objectives.

But yeah, I hear and agree that there is a spectrum here, self-hosting some parts while relying on others can be a good balance, especially if you have other requirements to consider, like time or resource investments, it's not a black & white decision you should make without careful considerations.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by justsomehnguy on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:43AM (#48293397)
> but that's exactly what self-hosters want to do

Only a sith self-hosters want to self-host absolutely everything.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by embedding-shape on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:47AM (#48293441)
Yeah, agree :) More nuanced update: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48292226
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by singpolyma3 on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @09:02AM (#48293633)
If the self hosters runs a mail server it can receive their transactional emails to themselves and they don't even need to care about delivery to gmail
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by 0x073 on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @06:45AM (#48292232)
Does postal still use outdated rails? That's the biggest issue I have with this project as a exposed web service and mail server is for me high risk especially with outdated software.
Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by e12e on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:30AM (#48293251)
They seem to be on 7.2, which will get security patches until August this year:

https://github.com/postalserver/postal/blob/8ef89606bc34146f...

https://rubyonrails.org/maintenance

Not great, but better than 6.x.

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by 0x073 on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @08:54AM (#48293537)
The links shows: gem "rails", "= 7.1.5.2"

I don't know rails well, but that sounds like 7.1 (that is unsupported) and not 7.2?

Re:Show HN: Posthorn, self-hosted mail without the mail server by e12e on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @07:07PM (#48301993)
Ah, my bad. Wishful thinking going from GitHub to rails site.

Rails minor versions are a bit odd imnho - but you're right 7.1 isn't under support anymore.