mirror of
https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy.git
synced 2025-04-05 14:07:38 +03:00
119 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
119 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
# Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
|
|
## I configured maddy as recommended and gmail still puts my messages in spam
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, GMail policies are opaque so we cannot tell why this happens.
|
|
|
|
Verify that you have a rDNS record set for the IP used
|
|
by sender server. Also some IPs may just happen to
|
|
have bad reputation - check it with various DNSBLs. In this
|
|
case you do not have much of a choice but to replace it.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, you may try marking multiple messages sent from
|
|
your domain as "not spam" in GMail UI.
|
|
|
|
## Message sending fails with `dial tcp X.X.X.X:25: connect: connection timed out` in log
|
|
|
|
Your provider is blocking outbound SMTP traffic on port 25.
|
|
|
|
You either have to ask them to unblock it or forward
|
|
all outbound messages via a "smart-host".
|
|
|
|
## What is resource usage of maddy?
|
|
|
|
For a small personal server, you do not need much more than a
|
|
single 1 GiB of RAM and disk space.
|
|
|
|
## How to setup a catchall address?
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy/issues/243#issuecomment-655694512
|
|
|
|
## maddy command prints a "permission denied" error
|
|
|
|
Run maddy command under the same user as maddy itself.
|
|
E.g.
|
|
```
|
|
sudo -u maddy maddy creds ...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## How maddy compares to MailCow or Mail-In-The-Box?
|
|
|
|
MailCow and MIAB are bundles of well-known email-related software configured to
|
|
work together. maddy is a single piece of software implementing subset of what
|
|
MailCow and MIAB offer.
|
|
|
|
maddy offers more uniform configuration system, more lightweight implementation
|
|
and has no dependency on Docker or similar technologies for deployment.
|
|
|
|
maddy may have more bugs than 20 years old battle-tested software.
|
|
|
|
It is easier to get help with MailCow/MITB since underlying implementations
|
|
are well-understood and have active community.
|
|
|
|
maddy has no Web interface for administration, that is currently done via CLI
|
|
utility.
|
|
|
|
## How maddy IMAP server compares to WildDuck?
|
|
|
|
Both are "more secure by definition": root access is not required,
|
|
implementation is in memory-safe language, etc.
|
|
|
|
Both support message compression.
|
|
|
|
Both have first-class Unicode/internationalization support.
|
|
|
|
WildDuck may offer easier scalability options. maddy does not require you to
|
|
setup MongoDB and Redis servers, though. In fact, maddy in its default
|
|
configuration has no dependencies besides libc.
|
|
|
|
maddy has less builtin authentication providers. This means no
|
|
app-specific passwords and all that WildDuck lists under point 4 on their
|
|
features page.
|
|
|
|
maddy currently has no admin Web interface, all necessary DB changes are
|
|
performed via CLI utility.
|
|
|
|
## How maddy SMTP server compares to ZoneMTA?
|
|
|
|
maddy SMTP server has a lot of similarities to ZoneMTA.
|
|
Both have powerful mechanisms for message routing (although designed
|
|
differently).
|
|
|
|
maddy does not require MongoDB server for deployment.
|
|
|
|
maddy has no web interface for queue inspection. However, it can
|
|
easily inspected by looking at files in /var/lib/maddy.
|
|
|
|
ZoneMTA has a number of features that may make it easier to integrate
|
|
with HTTP-based services. maddy speaks standard email protocols (SMTP,
|
|
Submission).
|
|
|
|
## Is there a webmail?
|
|
|
|
No, at least currently.
|
|
|
|
I suggest you to check out [alps](https://git.sr.ht/~migadu/alps) if you
|
|
are fine with alpha-quality but extremely easy to deploy webmail.
|
|
|
|
## Is there a content filter (spam filter)?
|
|
|
|
No. maddy moves email messages around, it does not classify
|
|
them as bad or good with the notable exception of sender policies.
|
|
|
|
It is possible to integrate rspamd using 'rspamd' module. Just add
|
|
`rspamd` line to `checks` in `local_routing`, it should just work
|
|
in most cases.
|
|
|
|
## Is it production-ready?
|
|
|
|
maddy is considered "beta" quality. Several people use it for personal email.
|
|
|
|
## Single process makes it unreliable. This is dumb!
|
|
|
|
This is a compromise between ease of management and reliability. Several
|
|
measures are implemented in code base in attempt to reduce possible effect
|
|
of bugs in one component.
|
|
|
|
Besides, you are not required to use a single process, it is easy to launch
|
|
maddy with a non-default configuration path and connect multiple instances
|
|
together using off-the-shelf protocols.
|