What are the opinions on PowerMTA vs MailerQ MTA, and what are the pros and cons of self-hosted MTAs versus cloud MTAs?

Email marketer from SparkPost Blog shares that when selecting an MTA, consider its scalability. Cloud MTAs often provide easier scalability, while self-hosted MTAs require careful planning and infrastructure management to handle increasing email volumes.

Marketers from Email Geeks share arguments for a self hosted MTA which include data privacy, security, cost, control, accountability, and avoiding shared footprints with untrusted senders. They note there are plenty of reasons not to use cloud MTAs, despite the market being big enough for both.

Email marketer from SendGrid Blog highlights that deliverability is influenced by many factors, including sender reputation, authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and engagement. Regardless of whether you choose a self-hosted or cloud MTA, these factors are crucial for successful email delivery.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Forum notes that while PowerMTA and MailerQ are commercial options, there are open-source MTAs like Postfix and Exim. They require significant configuration but offer maximum flexibility. They can be a viable alternative for those with strong technical skills and limited budgets.

Email marketer from Reddit explains that self-hosted MTAs offer more control over reputation, IP addresses, and deliverability configurations. However, they require significant technical expertise and ongoing maintenance. Cloud MTAs are easier to set up and manage but can be more expensive in the long run, especially for high-volume senders. The best choice depends on your technical capabilities and budget.

Marketer from Email Geeks mentions that `pmta reload` will retain the previous config if there's an error and that there's a test config command.

Marketer from Email Geeks clarifies that a simple `pmta reload` performs a graceful restart, avoiding full daemon restarts. Also mentions Matt Jenkins point that the config will be tested.

Marketer from Email Geeks explains that no MTA can automatically warmup IPs due to the case-specific nature of IP warmups. Bounce processing still requires manual classification. Also notes PowerMTA mostly uses CPU power, while MailerQ uses memory. Suggests listing issues to solve before choosing an MTA.

Email marketer from TechTarget contributor details that a key benefit of self-hosted MTAs is the ability to maintain complete control over your sending infrastructure and data. This is especially important for organizations with strict compliance requirements.

Marketer from Email Geeks shares that PowerMTA is vanilla enough to run a custom backend/frontend but requires a restart of daemons for virtual domain configuration changes. Also, no MTA will do warmups automatically; you need to write rules or pay someone to do it.

Email marketer from Stack Overflow shares that PowerMTA is generally faster in terms of message injection speed and throughput. It's considered a more mature product with a larger user base, and more readily available community support. MailerQ, on the other hand, is newer, uses more modern technologies, and might be easier to configure for certain setups. Its main strength lies in its flexibility and the ability to handle different message formats.

Marketer from Email Geeks confirms the config gets tested before attempting to reload to ensure a smooth transition.

Email marketer from Reddit responds to the question about the cost of MTAs, stating that self-hosting is more expensive in terms of time but can be cheaper in actual cost if sending a high volume of emails. Cloud MTAs are easier, but charge a premium.

Email marketer from Email Marketing Forum warns that cloud MTAs can be limiting in terms of customization and control. If you have very specific requirements or need to implement custom deliverability strategies, a self-hosted solution might be more appropriate.

Email marketer from Quora points out that choosing between PowerMTA and MailerQ depends on your specific needs and technical expertise. PowerMTA is a stable, widely-used option with a lot of documentation. MailerQ is more modern, potentially faster, but might require a bit more configuration knowledge.

Expert from Word to the Wise responds by explaining that reasons to choose an ESP (cloud MTA) vs MTA is because your company isn't in the business of sending email. ESPs have built-in support, feedback loops, abuse monitoring and blocklist monitoring. Self-hosted MTA's give you complete control but you need to manage everything yourself.

Expert from Spam Resource mentions that choosing the right MTA for your business depends on your unique sending patterns and needs. The questions you need to ask include 'what is your average send volume per day?', 'what level of visibility do you need over your campaign metrics?', 'what kind of support is vital to your team?', and 'what level of control and configuration are your looking for?' Answering these questions can help you choose the MTA that best suites your business.

Documentation from RFC Editor, RFC 5321 explains the core SMTP standards which all MTAs, including PowerMTA and MailerQ, must adhere to. Understanding these standards is crucial for configuring and troubleshooting any MTA.

Documentation from Nginx details how you can setup a SMTP proxy in Nginx to help manage your MTA infrastructure to improve security and performance. These can be put in front of both cloud and self hosted MTAs.

Documentation from Message Systems details PowerMTA's robust features for managing email delivery, including advanced queue management, detailed reporting, and flexible configuration options. It emphasizes PowerMTA's ability to handle high volumes of email with reliability and control.

Documentation from DMARC.org explains the importance of email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Implementing these protocols is crucial for improving email deliverability, regardless of the MTA you choose. DMARC helps protect your domain from spoofing and phishing attacks.

Documentation from MailerQ Wiki highlights MailerQ's multi-threading architecture, allowing it to efficiently utilize server resources and process large volumes of email. It also emphasizes its use of modern protocols and data formats for improved performance and flexibility.