Matthew

You can use the FQDN of your Lemmy instance in the nginx.conf file. I’ve uploaded my files to a gist here as an example.

You should be able just to replace any mention of lemmy.mydomain.com with your FQDN of your Lemmy instance and replace any your-postgres-password with your real Postgres password. You must also set your SMTP provider settings in the email section of config.hjson (I use Brevo). In the docker-compose.yml file, you can change which port you want to map from the host; I used 8976 in mine. Then just point your internet-facing reverse proxy to the host and whichever port you chose.

I’m not using Ansible to automate it at all. I’m just updating the files manually, as needed, and doing docker compose commands. I’m using Docker volumes to persist the data on them, so feel free to change any of those basic things you want.

Think of the NGINX proxy in Lemmy’s docker-compose.yml file as the entry point to Lemmy from outside the Docker network. For instance, I don’t have any ports mapped for the individual services except for the NGINX service. The NGINX proxy in this docker-compose file will access the other services through the internal docker network, so it isn’t a problem if you set up your nginx.conf file with the service’s names. With that done, you could map any port you want for the NGINX service from the host, then point your internet-facing reverse proxy to that.

I also plan on setting up a Mastodon server, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. So I don’t have anything specific to add other than it will work similarly by using docker’s port mapping or service names depending on whether each service needs to be internet-facing or only communicate internally.

Sure, try to dismiss my responses as simply being unproductive now. It’s obvious you are intentionally trying to run me around in circles to wear me down.

As I have pointed out in every response, you are just contradicting yourself; making assumptions and judging one group of people for their (inconsequential) reactionary behavior while trying to gatekeep for others because of their emotional reactions… You are only proving my point that you are either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging that your reasoning is flawed and you have not made a good argument for your case.

I will repeat it again: One: Consider treating everyone equally, not just because you agree or disagree with them or because you sympathise more or less with their specific situation. Two: Downvotes can be disabled. This is not a concern for Lemmy or it’s users; everyone gets a choice.

All of your opinions are your own, just stop trying to act like you are holier than everyone else when you have already been proven to stoop down to being a negative and offensive person yourself.

So, according to you, the people who are adding the notes to their posts are paranoid and it’s not okay because it’s apparently not, as you say, an “intuitive emotion” response that they don’t need to justify. Instead they are doing it to themselves…

Yet, the people who are getting upset about downvotes simply have no control over their emotional reaction. Furthermore, you say that it is everyone who downvotes people that are being negative and directly causing their emotional response and it is everyone else’s responsibility to only do things your way…

Great logic… I can see that you refuse to acknowledge that this line of reasoning is contradictory and flawed. As I said, good luck on your crusade against the big mean numbers. 👋

By the way, it does show when a comment has been edited.

Okay, I just typed up a much better response and then lost it into the Lemmy void, so sorry this will be much more to the point.

You are arguing two sides of the same issue based on your own personal opinions on each one. The issue being that people have certain psychological or behavioural issues. One: people who feel the need to leave a note on edited posts are paranoid. Two: people get upset by the number of downvotes.

First, I think your assessment about why people leave a note about their edits is incorrect. Even if they are doing it because they are paranoid, they should try to overcome that and possibly seek real world help. It is also such a minor thing that we should not try to create some “internet law” to justify criticizing them.

Second, if someone is getting that upset over downvotes, they should try to overcome that, and definitely seek real world help if they cannot cope. Being their gatekeeper will not solve any of these underlying problems and will not stop people from being negative. Again, instance admins can disable downvotes, so this is a non-issue with Lemmy.

Exactly, as I said, people should stop taking the numbers so seriously… To say that “it’s just the way it is” doesn’t help address the underlying issue and it won’t stop “negative people” from being negative.

I’ve seen some of your replies to others on here as you’ve tried to defend your stance and you have resorted to claiming that it’s their problem because of their “conspiracy mindset”. I could just as easily make that same counterargument here but it is offensive and isn’t productive.

You clearly don’t want to discuss the real issues and just want to shove your opinions down people’s throats.

Numbers are not indicative of an emotion. It doesn’t matter why someone downvotes. If they are going to be a “negative person” then they will do that regardless. I agree that everyone should make an effort to be kind and avoid being toxic, but saying that downvotes or “negative numbers” have such power is just people putting too much thought into it… Good luck with your crusade. Downvotes can be disabled by an instance admin. I would recommend anyone who cannot handle the negative numbers to consider joining one of those instances.

It’s hard to understand your stance on downvoting, but from what I can tell, you think everyone who downvotes should just downvote and move on without commenting. It’s funny because every post I have seen about downvoting has said the opposite; “Don’t downvote just because you disagree” or “If you downvote, post a comment as to why”…

I say everyone should stop trying to dictate how other people use their software and stop complaining that “everybody else is doing it wrong”™️. If you have a problem with downvoting, I think you can join an instance that has it disabled.

No, no you should not. I haven’t used homepage but you probably just need to attach the services to the same network or just map the ports on the host and just use the host IP.

You’re right, but as you said, the reason I reacted this way is because of the way you posted it. I’m also taking out some frustration about everyone and their mother having some “great feature” or idea they want to suggest even if they haven’t thought it through. For that, I apologize.

Maybe it could be done, but I’m quite sure that doing it correctly wouldn’t be as simple as you think. I won’t pretend to know how all of the software works, but I think it’s safe to assume there are a lot of technical things to consider, especially when federating (and other fediverse software) comes into play. Realistically, I would see this as a waste of effort and a very low priority.

That is exactly what I thought of when I read this. Why would Lemmy implement such a seemingly obvious bad feature and become 4chan?

Also, the claim that this would prevent bot accounts is way off. Bot accounts still need an instance to register on anyways. The thing is, anyone can spin up an instance at any time All this “feature” would do is let them hide…

Great post to demonstrate how some ideas might sound good to you, but are actually just bad, lol.

Since nobody bothers to check previous posts (even from just a day or two ago), I won’t bother with the details. All I will say is to learn the purposes of an MX record and how sending email works (and the differences). Hint: MX records have nothing to do with sending emails from your server. Just use a third party SMTP service in your config.hjson file.

I agree with @terribleplan@lemmy.nrd.li that the inclusion of a postfix SMTP container and using that in the example configs is probably doing more harm than good.

You shouldn’t need the Postfix container at all unless you want to manually set that up and know what you’re doing. You configure your SMTP settings in the config.hjson file as outlined in the example defaults.hjson file. I’m using a third-party SMTP provider to avoid any deliverability issues with sending emails directly from my server’s IP address. Just ensure you configured your DNS correctly (DKIM, etc.), punch in the info, and it should work.

For Lemmy users specifically, I believe Lemmings has been widely accepted. However, when referring to a user of federated software in general (remember they can potentially communicate with other federated software), we could refer to each other as “Fedizens” of the “Fediverse”. I have seen a developer use the term “Fedizen” in one of their code examples, and I like it as a more inclusive name.

I ran email server with Mailcow Docker. Easiest way I have found. It is perfect to host your own mailbox but as other have said, the sending from your IP might just get blocked by other big mail servers. Luckily Mailcow allows you to use it as a SMTP relay and you can route outbound mail through the well known SMTP services.

I have had an issue with updates to Nginx Proxy Manager breaking itself in the past so I switched to Traefik.

NPM is much more user-friendly when it works. However, as mentioned, Traefik integrates directly with docker through labels, making it very convenient if not a bit more of a learning curve.

So far, the only annoyance I have with Traefik is that I haven’t found a very easy way to host itself on a separate server from where the containers are running because it uses the docker.sock file to pick up the labels on running containers automatically. Instead, I manually create files for the files provider. I don’t think this is an issue if you are using Kubernetes, but I haven’t gotten all the way down that road quite yet, as it is a bit overkill for me.