Selfhosted

46146 readers

417 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Spit Balling A Work Around For Blocked Email Port (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by irmadlad@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have a couple Docker containers that use email as an alert system or just for info like completed jobs. The server I would like to host them on has, for whatever reason, blocked email ports and you have to pay extra to have them turned on.

It seems to me tho, that I should be able to port all email through Tailscale to a local or even remote email client. For instance, in the case of setting the parameters in the Docker compose, it would look something like this:

SITE_NAME: mycoolwebsite
DEFAULT_FROM_EMAIL: email address
EMAIL_HOST: smtp
EMAIL_HOST_USER: email address
EMAIL_HOST_PASSWORD: email password
EMAIL_PORT: 100.x.x.x:587

Then, configure the local email client to listen on 100.x.x.x:587.

Would this be doable, or is there a better way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

If you control both sides, you can just use a non-standard port. If you only control the client, you just need to make sure wherever your data exits allows outgoing traffic on that port.

So yeah, that should work.