The windows client does, yes. But I’ve found that to be fragile on occasions.

Technically, it does have a windows client. It’s just in various states of being broken.

For the last 10 days tailscale clocked 1% battery on my phone. I honestly didn’t even consider turning it off for battery savings.

If tailscale inside a container allows you to talk to it via “direct” connection and not a derp proxy, then it will offer you better service isolation (can set the tailscale ACLs for this specific service) without sacrificing performance.

Tailscale pushes for it because it just ties you in more. It allows to to utilize the ACLs better, to see your thing in their service mesh, and every service will count against the free node limit.

In practice, I often do both. E.g. I’ll have my http ingress exposed to tailscale and route a bunch of different services through it at a single tailscale node, where the access control is done by services individually. But I’ll also run a pod-to-pod tailscale between two k8s clusters because tailscale ACL is just convenient.

Updates to DNS, yes. Not necessarily to your primary zone. In other words, you don’t need access to the name servers for your highly privileged example.com zone, only the nameservers for inconsequential.example.com. With the challenge delegation you can easily narrow the scope by CNAMEing the relevant _acme-challenge enries in your primary domain once. This not only removes the need for the validator to modify your primary zone, but also scopes what subdomains it can validate, too. So the blast radius decreases.

I, too, maintain several devices that insist on having the certificates (and keys, yuck) being fed to them by hand. I automated it all, because I don’t see why a human should be in a loop of copying the secret material. Automaton is good.

How complicated is it to have a CNAME? /s

You can delegate to isolated nameservers with DNS-01, there’s no need to have control over the primary zone: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/technical-deep-dive-securing-automation-acme-dns-challenge-validation

ECC is slightly more required for ZFS because its ARC is generally more aggressive than the usual linux caching subsystem. That said, it’s not a hard requirement. My curent NAS was converted from my old windows box (which apparently worked for years with bad ram). Zfs uncovered the problem in the first 2 days by reporting the (recoverable) data corruption in the pool. When I fixed the ram issue and hash-checked against the old backup all the data was good. So, effectively, ZFS uncovered memory corruption and remained resilient against it.

given time in lieu

after squadron 42 ships*

TIL, thanks!

I had exactly the same use case and I ended up with a 40G DAC fiber for that case. It ended up cheaper than converting the whole lan to 10G.

That said, it feels like used 10G equipment is easier to come by than 2.5G for now, and if you have 2G fiber uplink and only 1G past the router then it’s a waste.

Garage is trivial to get up and running and it’s more lightweight than minio nowadays.

No. It’s my in-cluster storage that I only use for things that are easier to work with via S3 api, and I do backups outside of the k8s scope (it’s a bunch of various solutions that boil down to offsite zfs replication, basically). I’d suggest you to take a look at garage’s replication features if you want it to be durable.

Actual public services run there, yeah. In case if any is compromised they can only access limited internal resources, and they’d have to fully compromise the cluster to get the secrets to access those in the first place.

I really like garage. I remember when minio was straightforward and easy to work with. Garage is that thing now. I use it because it’s just co much easier to handle file serving where you have s3-compatible uploads even when you don’t do any real clustering.

Between homebrew and nix, the amount of foss macs can run out of the box is pretty close to some generic Ubuntu (nixpkgs is technically the largest repo out there, but not all of the nixpkgs are available on mac).

I’ve dealt with exactly the same dilemma in my homelab. I used to have 3 clusters, because you’d always want to have an “infra” cluster which others can talk to (for monitoring, logs, docker registry, etc. workloads). In the end, I decided it’s not worth it.

I separated on the public/private boundary and moved everything publicly facing to a separate cluster. It can only talk to my primary cluster via specific endpoints (via tailscale ingress), and I no longer do a multi-cluster mesh (I used to have istio for that, then cilium). This way, the public cluster doesn’t have to be too large capacity-wise, e.g. all the S3 api needs are served by garage from the private cluster, but the public cluster will reverse-proxy into it for specific needs.

any oauth (I use kanidm) and oauth2-proxy solves that and now you can easily use passkeys to log into your intranet resources.

The biggest certainty is that just having an open port for an SMTP server dangling out there means you will 100% be attacked.

True.

Not just sometimes, non-stop.

True

So you don’t want to host on a machine with anything else on it, cuz security.

I don’t think “cuz security” is a proper argument or no one would be ever listening on public internet. Are there risks? Yes.

So you need a dedicated host for that portion

Bullshit. You do not need a dedicated host for smtp ingress. It won’t be attacked that much.

and a very capable and restrictive intrusion detection system (let’s say crowdsec), which is going to take some amount of resources to run, and stop your machine from toppling over.

That’s not part of the mail pipeline the OP asked for.

Here, I brought receipts. There are two spikes of attempted connections in the last month, but it’s all negligible traffic.

Self-hosting mail servers is tricky, same as self-hosting ssh, http, or whatever else. But it’s totally doable even on an aging RPi. No, you don’t need to train expensive spam detection because it’s enough to have very strict rules on where you get mail from and drop 99% of the traffic because it will be compliant. No, you don’t need to run crowdstrike for a server that accepts bytes and stores them for another server (IMAP) to offer them to you. You don’t even need an antivirus, it’s not part of mail hosting, really.

Instead of bickering and posturing, you could have spent your time better educating OP on the best practices, e.g. like this.

I won’t quote the bit of your post again, but no, if you have an open smtp port then you won’t get constantly attacked. Again, I have a fully qualified smtp server and it receives about 40 connections per hour (mostly the spam ones). That’s trivial to process.

It doesn’t matter that I forward emails from another server, because, in the end, mine is still public on the internet.

If you are trying to make a point that it’s tricky to run a corporate-scale smtp and make sure that end users are protected, then it’s clearly not what the OP was looking for.

The biggest certainty is that just having an open port for an SMTP server dangling out there means you will 100% be attacked. Not just sometimes, non-stop. So you don’t want to host on a machine with anything else on it, cuz security. So you need a dedicated host for that portion, and a very capable and restrictive intrusion detection system (let’s say crowdsec), which is going to take some amount of resources to run, and stop your machine from toppling over.

I need to call BS on this. No one cares. I’ve been running a small go-smtp based server that would do some processing on forwarded mail for 2 years now and I don’t see much of “attacks”. Yeah, sometimes I get passersbys trying to figure if this is a mail relay, which it’s not.

You absolutely don’t need a dedicated machine and an IDS. And you definitely need crowdsec.

Yeah, sending mail is somewhat hard lately, but DKIM and DMARC can be figured out. Receiving mail is just straightforward.