LETS GET THE MAILSERVER OPDATED OR REPLACED PLEASE

[Crazytoo]

This has bin on the top of a long list for quit some time now
But nothing seems to be happening i have the 459 pro+ looking for a now model and the only reason for this is the lack of mailserver support

I am seriously thinking about changing my qnap to synology and i have had the qnap system for about 7 years

Thanks guys for a great product needing some tweaks

[schumaku]

Can't see much need (and demand...) for a mail server on a NAS, typically located behind a SOHO router, on a cheepo dynamic IP Internet connection. The effort to maintain a reliable, stable, and reasonably performing anti-spam protected EMail server is much higher than the costs of any similar (and much better) hosted or cloud EMail system, DNS included.

To make such a solution reliable, you need redundant Internet connectivity, redundant SMTP servers, a high available DNS, ... much more than we can do with reasonable effort.

[Crazytoo]

Is the qnap not create for multiple services ??? Ftp samb NFS webserver mailserver and so one ?????

There is a real demand for small compact servers with low power consuption

istead off just saying that you dont se a need tjeck out all the post on the net for that support !!

Thanks
but i can see that Qnap will never take this seriuosly .........

[giopas]

If possible on your qnap, you can virtualise whatever OS you want and install whatever mailserver you want.

[schumaku]

but i can see that Qnap will never take this seriuosly .........

I'm not QNAP my friend ... as a community member and very senior IT infrastructure person, I can't see _any_ reason to run a email server somewhere at home on the NAS "just" to have it there. Why? Because there are much better solutions available, perfectly reachable, with perfect uptime and reliability, between free and a few Dollars per month. Something I can never achieve by operating "my" own e-mail infrastructure, either for me, my domain, or my customers. Or unless you expect a fully blown Active Directory/Exchange/Outlook infrastructure...

[epimetheus]

Dear schumaku,
there is a whole range of user scenarios between a company that employs 'senior IT infrastructure staff' and a home user behind a soho router with dynamic IP adresses.
If you run a 10 people office on a qnap, it is quite normal to use it as an internal mailserver that communicates with a 'professional' email service for all external mail.
But there are two main reasons why I want a working mail solution for my QNAP:
1. QNAP used to have a working e-mail solution, XDOVE, but stopped supporting it. So you cannot update your QNAP tot the latest firmware if you use XDOVE.
2. The competition, Synology, does have a working e-mail solution.

So, for my 6-person non-profit organisation I am now forced to either buy a new Synology NAS, setup an extra Linux box with an internal mailserver (and support it!) or keep on using an outdated and therefore insecure QNAP.
I know for a fact that Xdove can be made to run on the latest QNAP software, so why doesn't QNAP make it available as a standard package, like they used to and like their main competitor does? Or implement another solution?
Another scenario that needs a mailserver on a QNAP is when you use it as a one box testenvironment for inhouse PHP programs that use mail functionality. In that case, you simply do not want external mail. Or a teamserver that is not allowed to use external mail for security reasons, but needs mail for internal team communication.

You are right about the reliability of e-mail services like Gmail and all the others. But sometimes you simply do not want to use them.

[schumaku]

If you run a 10 people office on a qnap, it is quite normal to use it as an internal mailserver that communicates with a 'professional' email service for all external mail.

Overkill in my opinion. Just like operating a fully blown Exchange servers the majority of users and organisations never need. To complex, to much to maintain, to much resources, to high risk, ... Times have changed. With European hourly IT rates, a six people office can't afford this.

1. QNAP used to have a working e-mail solution, XDOVE, but stopped supporting it.

In my opinion, even the now legacy email solution was not good enough.

Typical monthly cost of a cloud solution (yes, I know some people will hate me for this ... why does he talk of "public" cloud, we want our own private cloud blah...) is 5 USD/EUR per user, or 50 USD/EUR per user and year. These are three to four hour of work at a low rate! And not just for e-mail - these solutions include much more. For my part, I can't sell this to any of my customers (or give away my time to a non-profit) - my time is simply to expensive. And all the continuous attempts hammering the SMTP, SMTP submission, IMAP4, POP3, ... ports ... I don't want this on my or my friends and customers production NAS. And I've not talked of an effective and reliable Spam protection - which does not work on a small scale (on the amount of messages, on the amount of resources, on the amount of malicious messages. That's is why I'm convinced these solutions are dead, and can't be adjusted in any aspect in the year 2015 any more.

2. The competition, Synology, does have a working e-mail solution.

Yes, and? They lack of other features, functions, and benefit QNAP does provide.

So, for my 6-person non-profit organisation I am now forced to either buy a new Synology NAS, setup an extra Linux box with an internal mailserver (and support it!)

See above. Exactly what I wrote before continue reading your post!

...or keep on using an outdated and therefore insecure QNAP.

Perfectly understand - this _is_ a big mistake! Formally complain to QNAP, to QNAP sales, to QNAP customer service, ... Afraid, it's the wrong place here - we're community members and can't make QNAP change.

Hey, it's not that I don't want to understand your concerns...

Regards,
-Kurt.

[epimetheus]

Talking about mailservers and the competition: I just noticed the following on the Synology website:
They have a NAS-Selector that assists you in choosing a NAS that suits you best. One of the three questions they ask is if you want to use it as a mailserver!
QNAP has just lost another customer...

[forkless]

Actually setting up a mail server is one of the most underestimated and complicated subject matters when it comes to setting up a server. Don't get me wrong anybody can get a QPKG style mail server installed but there are an overwhelming amount of requirements you need to fulfill to get for a mail server to even run half decently.

Even if you have access to a trusted SMTP server in your ISPs network, you still will lack half the infra requirements to get things running to satisfaction. If you have ever set up a proper working mail server solution you should how long that list of pre-requisites (and not realistic for most home use).

Getting a domain name for $5 a year and for instance a google mail solution for said domain is a far more cost effective and workable solution.

The real problem really starts with manufacturers like Synology and QNAP that sell you the 'promise' of a working SOHO mail server which in reality can only be achieved by a very small subset of users.


Maybe an analogy in pictures helps more:

The promise


What you will get if you are lucky with your infrastructural situation


Technically both work, but the latter is not really fit for purpose/business.


PS. I realize the situation you are in but there are alternatives, have you ever looked into https://www.google.com/nonprofits/products/

[epimetheus]

Forkless,
your analogy is right, of course. The complexity of setting up an e-mail server is highly underestimated.
But I am one of those people that understand e-mail, routing and all other prerequisites. And yes, it's not realistic for home use. I have been using a QNAP at home for over 6 years and never even considered installing the e-mail options.
Google is indeed a good mail-alternative, but you can only use their non-profit offer when you are an officially registered non-profit organisation. In the Netherlands, where I live, that means that you need to register your organisation as an SBBI or ANBI, which costs about €350,- for all the legal stuff involved.
I'll check to see how difficult it is to switch to Google e-mail while still using my own domain name. Having said that, one of my fellow volunteers has a spare Synology box (he just bought a bigger one for himself) that could easily replace my current QNAP box. That would be the easiest short term solution for my users.

By the way, my users don't want a sportscar. They want a simple pickup truck that gets the job done. By using the QNAP they got exactly what they wanted. Before that, they used bycicles, just like anyone else in Holland.

[forkless]

I hear you, one of the bigger issues really is that there seems to be a trend where ISPs (in the Netherlands as well) only start to allow usage via TLS/SSL authentication, which makes your ISPs SMTP server useless as a smarthost, unless ofcourse you don't mind being picked up by other mail servers as having 'forged' headers.

And I do understand your financial dilemma (I've done my share of work for non-profits, foundations) but getting that ANBI certification could potentially save you a lot of money on the long term. That is if Google accepts the Dutch ANBI status as non-profit.


PS. I do belief that QNAP is on the right path of moving away from email solutions on the NAS looking by the absence of a solution for ages now. I just wish their sales/marketing would get the message as well, because now their product descriptions are sending mixed signals. Maybe we will see a VM solution in the near future for Intel/AMD models when QTS 4.2 arrives. (It still will not solve infra problems for the SOHO user though).

[schumaku]

I'll check to see how difficult it is to switch to Google e-mail while still using my own domain name.

Keeping DNS on any other DNS provider (Google DNS is not available worldwide yet) - it's just about configuring a few A, MX, and TXT (SPF and verification) records. A few minutes at most - and a no-brainer for years.

... one of the bigger issues really is that there seems to be a trend where ISPs (in the Netherlands as well) only start to allow usage via TLS/SSL authentication, which makes your ISPs SMTP server useless as a smarthost

Well, a _real_ mail server does send out it's e-mail direct. When deploying an email server on an ISP dynamic range (even if permanently reserved) might lower the email sender trust for some receivers. Some might even completely block and reject connections from dynamic IP ranges as listed on the better RBL lists.

[forkless]

... one of the bigger issues really is that there seems to be a trend where ISPs (in the Netherlands as well) only start to allow usage via TLS/SSL authentication, which makes your ISPs SMTP server useless as a smarthost

Well, a _real_ mail server does send out it's e-mail direct. When deploying an email server on an ISP dynamic range (even if permanently reserved) might lower the email sender trust for some receivers. Some might even completely block and reject connections from dynamic IP ranges as listed on the better RBL lists.

That's why I mentioned the smart host alternative (which is one of the few ways to get things working fairly decently, fairly..). The RBL, not having a decent reverse DNS lookup, you really don't want to keep changing your SMTP banners to match your DHCP reverse lookups each time you change IP, etc. For most home/soho users setting up SPF/DKIM/DMARC, TLS and the likes is a steep learning curve. And I'm not talking about setting up a few TXT DNS records and an MX record, that's the easy bit indeed. Getting it configured on your mail server so it actually does something with it is a whole different story altogether. Something none of the QNAP/Synology mail server implementations cater(ed) for by the way.

[pwilson]

I have always wanted to setup a Mail Server on my NAS, but my interest is simply because I want to "play" with it. I have no intention of using my NAS as my default Mail Server.

I setup a Linux Mail Server from scratch in 1991 for fun. It took well in excess of 500 hours of labour before I finally got it going properly. Much has changed since 1991, so it would probably take me even longer to do it today. It would be nice if it was easy, but it isn't.

NAS manufacturers should be able to make decent Mail Servers for their NAS products, but so far no manufacturer seems to step up to the challenge properly. Microsoft's solutions are very expensive, so I can appreciate that people want options on their NAS devices so that they can avoid Microsoft pricing. I'm sure it is already possible to setup a "basic" E-mail server on a NAS, but I want a "complete" solution, including support for Mailing Lists, E-mail to Printer, PGP Encryption, etc.

I do still want to do this, but such a setup would be impossible to provide as a "turn key" / QPKG solution, simply because the configuration is so complicated, and because all the "pieces" of the solution need to work together. I'm afraid I agree with the observations of both schumaku and "forkless" in this thread.

This is not a task to be undertaken by anyone, except seasoned Linux geeks with a thorough understanding of all the technologies needed. The O'Reilly "Sendmail" book is well in excess of 900 pages, and that is only one "piece" of the puzzle. Many ISP's, and major E-mail Servers (ie Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc will not accept connections from sites without DNS "A" or "AAAA" records, and reverse DNS lookup entries, so it will take an understanding of more than just SMTP protocol, in order successfully setup a mail server on a NAS.

Even if a NASAdmin is able to successfully setup a "receive-only" E-mail Server on a NAS, most NAS Admins will find that they need to forward all their output e-mail via their ISP's servers, simply because they aren't permitted to even connect to major e-mail providers, in order to deliver outbound messages.

[epimetheus]

Guys, I get the picture. Today, for the first time, I got a DMARC error from Google. Lucky for me it was caused by a typo in an e-mail address, but I get the general drift of it all.
The major e-mail providers are turning up the thumbscrews (translated dutch saying) because of all the SPAM and unsollicited e-mail.
Guess it's end of line for small privately hosted email-servers.
But that still leaves me with the problem that the applications that I use on my QNAP have to do something with the mails they generate and receive. On a close to zero budget.
Back to the drawing board, then for me.
I just wished that QNAP sales/marketing were a bit more pro-active for SOHO users on this subject.

All of you, thanks for your advice.

Slightly off-topic: I am used to managing Centos based Linux boxes with webmin/virtualmin. So I am familiar with things like Postfix, sendmail, dovecot and various webclients like Roundcube, horde and squirrelmail. Solutions from an almost forgotten age, so it seems...

Martien