Email submission services consist of a server that accepts email using authenticated SMTP for LDAP users of the domain.


TODO: should include easy configuration instructions for major platforms (Thunderbird, Mail app, Outlook and Google mail, maybe?). pili volunteered to write/test the Mac OS instructions. ggus says that Access Now! has some docs we could start from. vegas agrees that this documentation and support will be covered by teams outside of TPA.



  • SMTP: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. The email protocol spoken between servers to deliver email. Consists of two standards, RFC821 and RFC5321 which defined SMTP extensions, also known as ESMTP.
  • MTA: Mail Transport Agent. A generic SMTP server. Eugeni is such a server.
  • MUA: Mail User Agent. An "email client", a program used to receive, manage and send email for users.
  • MSA : Mail Submission Agent. An SMTP server specifically designed to only receive email.
  • MDA: Mail Delivery Agent. The email service actually writing the email to the user's mailbox. Out of scope.

This document describes the implementation of a MSA, although the service will most likely also include a MTA functionality in that it will actually deliver emails to targets.

Pager playbook

Disaster recovery

N/A. The server should be rebuildable from scratch using the Puppet directive and does not have long-term user data. All user data is stored in DNS or LDAP.

If email delivery starts failing, users are encouraged to go back to the email providers they were using before this service was deployed.


Installation     SRV 0 1 587




  • ticket #30608
  • no bugtracker specifically for this service, TODO



The idea is to create a new server to deal with delivery problems email users are currently seeing. While they can receive email through their forwards without too much problem, their emails often get dropped to the floor when sending from that email address.

It is suspected that users are having those problems because the originating servers are not in the domain. The hope is that setting up a new server inside that domain would help with delivery. There's anecdotal evidence (see this comment for example) that delivery emails from existing servers (over SSH to iranicum, in that example) improves reliability of email delivery significantly.

This project came out of ticket #30608, which has the launch checklist.


Must have

  • basic compatibility with major clients (Thunderbird,, Outlook, Gmail?)
  • delivery over secure (TLS + password) SMTP
  • credentials stored in LDAP

Nice to have

  • automatic client configuration
  • improved delivery over current federated configuration
  • delivery reliability monitoring with major providers (e.g. hotmail, gmail, yahoo)
  • pretty graphs
  • formalized SSH-key delivery to avoid storing cleartext passwords on clients


  • 100%, infaillable, universal delivery to all providers (ie. emails will still be lost)
  • mailbox management (ie. no incoming email, IMAP, POP, etc)
  • spam filtering (ie. we won't check outgoing emails)
  • no DKIM, SPF, DMARC, or ARC for now, although maybe a "null" SPF record if it helps with delivery

Approvals required

Approved by vegas, requested by network team, agreed with TPA at the Stockholm meeting.

Proposed Solution

The proposed design is to setup a new email server in the ganeti cluster (currently gnt-fsn) with the user list synchronized from LDAP, using a new password field (named mailPassword). The access would therefore be granted only to LDAP users, and LDAP accounts would be created as needed. In the short term, LDAP can be used to modify that password but in the mid-term, it would be modifiable through the web interface like the webPassword or rtcPassword fields.

Current inventory

  • active LDAP accounts: 91
  • non-LDAP forwards (to real people): 24
  • role forwards (to other emails): 76

Forward targets:

  • 30
  • 21
  • other: 93 (only 4 domains have more than one forward)

Delivery rate: SMTP, on eugeni, is around 0.5qps, with a max of 8qps in the last 7 days (2019-06-06). But that includes mailing lists as well. During that period, around 27000 emails were delivered to aliases.


Labor and gnt-fsn VM costs. To be detailed.

Below is an evaluation of the various Alternatives that were considered.

External hosting cost evaluation

  • Google: 8$/mth/account? (to be verified?)
  • anarcat requested price quotation
  • default pricing: 100$/year on shared hosting and 50GB total, possibly no spam filter. 1TB disk: 500$/year. disk encryption would need to be implemented, quoted 2000-4000$ setup fee to implement it in the AlternC opensource control panel.
  • self-hosting: ~4000-500EUR setup, 5000EUR-7500EUR/year, liberal estimate (will probably be less)
  • mailfence 1750 setup cost and 2.5 euros per user/year

Note that the self-hosting cost evaluation is for the fully-fledged service. Option 2, above, of relaying email, has overall negligible costs although that theory has been questioned by members of the sysadmin team.

Internal hosting cost evaluation

This is a back-of-the-napkin calculation of what it would cost to host actual email services at TPA infrastructure itself. We consider this to be a “liberal” estimate, ie. costs would probably be less and time estimates have been padded (doubled) to cover for errors.


  • each mailbox is on average, a maximum of 10GB
  • 100 mailboxes maximum at first (so 1TB of storage required)
  • LUKS full disk encryption
  • IMAP and basic webmail (Roundcube or Rainloop)
  • “Trees” mailbox encryption out of scope for now


  • Hetzner px62nvme 2x1TB RAID-1 64GB RAM 75EUR/mth, 900EUR/yr
  • Hetzner px92 2x1TB SSD RAID-1 128GB RAM 115EUR/mth, 1380EUR/yr
  • Total hardware: 2280EUR/yr, ~200EUR setup fee

This assumes hosting the server on a dedicated server at Hetzner. It might be possible (and more reliable) to ensure further cost savings by hosting it on our shared virtualized infrastructure. Calculations for this haven’t been performed by the team, but I would guess we might save around 25 to 50% of the above costs, depending on the actual demand and occupancy on the mail servers.


  • LDAP password segregation: 4 hours*
  • Dovecot deployment and LDAP integration: 8 hours
  • Dovecot storage optimization: 8 hours
  • Postfix mail delivery integration: 8 hours
  • Spam filter deployment: 8 hours
  • 100% cost overrun estimate: 36 hours
  • Total setup costs: 72 hours @ 50EUR/hr: 3600EUR one time

This is the most imprecise evaluation. Most email systems have been built incrementally. The biggest unknown is the extra labor associated with running the IMAP server and spam filter. A few hypothesis:

  • 1 hour a week: 52 hours @ 50EUR/hr: 2600EUR/yr
  • 2 hours a week: 5200EUR/yr

I would be surprised if the extra work goes beyond one hour a week, and will probably be less. This also does not include 24/7 response time, but no service provider evaluated provides that level of service anyways.


  • One-time setup: 3800EUR (200EUR hardware, 3600EUR staff)
  • Recurrent: roughly between 5000EUR and 7500EUR/year, majority in staff

Alternatives considered

There are three dimensions to our “decision tree”:

  1. Hosting mailboxes or only forwards: this means that instead of just forwarding emails to some other providers, we actually allow users to store emails on the server. Current situation is we only do forwards
  2. SMTP authentication: this means allowing users to submit email using a username and password over the standard SMTP (technically “submission”) port. This is currently not allowed also some have figured out they can do this over SSH already.
  3. Self-hosted or hosted elsewhere: if we host the email service ourselves right now or not. The current situation is we allow inbound messages but we do not store them. Mailbox storage is delegated to each individual choice of email provider, which also handles SMTP authentication.

Here are is the breakdown of pros and cons of each approach. Note that there are multiple combinations of those possible, for example we could continue not having mailboxes but allow SMTP authentication, and delegate this to a third party. Obviously, some combinations (like no SMTP authentication and mailboxes) are a little absurd and should be taken with a grain of salt.

TP full hosting: mailboxes, SMTP authentication


  • Easier for TPA to diagnose email problems than if email is hosted by an undetermined third party
  • People’s personal email is not mixed up with Tor email.
  • Easier delegation between staff on rotations
  • Control over where data is stored and how
  • Full control of our infrastructure
  • Less trust issues


  • probably the most expensive option
  • requires more skilled staff
  • high availability harder to achieve
  • high costs

TP not hosting mailboxes; TP hosting outgoing SMTP authentication server


  • No data retention issues: TP not responsible for legal issues surrounding mailboxes contents
  • Solves delivery problem and nothing else (minimal solution)
  • We’re already running an SMTP server
  • SSH tunnels already let our lunatic-fringe do a version of this
  • Staff keeps using own mail readers (eg gmail UI) for receiving mail
  • Federated solution
  • probably the cheapest option
  • Work email cannot be accessed by TP staff


  • SMTP-AUTH password management (admin effort and risk)
  • Possible legal requests to record outgoing mail? (SSH lunatic-fringe already at risk, though)
  • DKIM/SPF politics vs “slippery slope”
  • Forces people to figure out some good ISP to host their email
  • Shifts the support burden to individuals
  • Harder to diagnose email problems
  • Staff or “role” email accounts cannot be shared

TP pays third party (riseup, protonmail, mailfence, gmail??) for full service (mailboxes, delivery)


  • Less admin effort
  • Less/no risk to TP infrastructure (legal or technical)
  • Third party does not hold email data hostage; only handles outgoing
  • We know where data is hosted instead of being spread around


  • Not a federated solution
  • Implicitly accepts email cartel model of “trusted” ISPs
  • Varying levels of third party data management trust required
  • Some third parties require custom software (protonmail)
  • Single point of failure.
  • Might force our users to pick a provider they dislike
  • All eggs in the same basket

Status quo (no mailboxes, no authentication)


  • Easy. Fast. Cheap. Pick three.


  • Shifts burden of email debugging to users, lack of support

Details of the chosen alternative (SMTP authentication):

  • Postfix + offline LDAP authentication (current proposal)
  • Postfix + direct LDAP authentication: discarded because it might fail when the LDAP server goes down. LDAP server is currently not considered to be critical and can be restarted for maintenance without affecting the rest of the infrastructure.
  • reusing existing field like webPassword or rtcPassword in LDAP: considered a semantic violation.

See also internal Nextcloud document.

No benchmark considered necessary.