Brickfrog

Should be able to do that with Jellyfin, no Plex/Plex Pass needed (if you really want to use media software for this).

That said I suspect your current method with creating a torrent to share is much more resilient when dealing with choppy internet connections. With Jellyfin/Plex it’s more of a direct download situation, not sure if either can resume broken downloads.

Syncthing is not just for LAN use. Even their homepage mentions transmitting data over the internet

https://syncthing.net/

I’ve been using it to sync devices over the internet for years. It’s also how people use it to sync from say their desktop to their phones, remote server, etc.

If you watch your network firewall Syncthing does reach out to servers on the internet to help it find other devices so e.g. if you enter the other device’s ID (example ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG-ABCDEFG) it can reach out over the internet to find that specific ID to pair with. I think Syncthing uses a sort of DHT resolver to find other devices, I know on my firewall I had to whitelist Syncthing’s servers to make it work.

I was going to try to link you some references but their forums seem to have connection issues at the moment, you may want to search around later if you’re interested how Syncthing works over the internet.

Seems like more plebbit spam.

Edit: why the downvotes?

Users on lemmy.world are generally very anti cryptocurrency, they’re going to downvote anything discussing the topic. Just browse other cryptocurrency posts in this instance and read all the .world comments.

re: your question I suspect to truly selfhost you’d need to sync the bitcoin blockchain onto your own system and work from there, either with the official client or some other heavy wallet. Beyond that not sure, may need to script a query to your local wallet to monitor for changes to specific BTC addresses (if something doesn’t already exist to do this).

No display at all? I suspect something else is at play there…

On that model during bootup

F2 = BIOS

F10 = Boot Menu

You should be seeing something in the Boot Menu, or at least be able to get into the BIOS?

Also double-check the USB formatting, I don’t remember if that NUC has UEFI boot support or if it needs to be enabled in the BIOS beforehand. e.g. if your USB is formatted to boot legacy then reformat it to boot in UEFI, or vice versa.

I actually have a few of those NUC models around but am not sure what it does exactly with no SSD, I think/thought it should still be able to handle USB boot in that situation.

Yup going to do that soon :)

Still on 4.x, bummer as I normally wait a while before doing major version software updates but it is what it is.

Has it been happening since qBittorrent 5.x ? Only reason I ask is that 5.0 did introduce a new feature per https://www.qbittorrent.org/news

FEATURE: Allow to move content files to Trash instead of deleting them (glassez)

Maybe double-check the qBittorrent settings and verify that isn’t somehow enabled? I’m not on on that version yet so can’t be sure how that new feature works or is configured.

If it’s not that then I suspect the other comments are right e.g. a hardlinked file elsewhere would defintiely mean you need to delete all the hardlinks to actually free up space.

they want to setup a server to host a simple “contact” website

Not sure what sort of uptime/reliability your friends are expecting out of a self hosted solution but for something like that you wouldn’t need much processing power, even a Raspberry Pi can host a simple website. Not sure what to recommend offhand but there are definitely vendors in that space that sell simple DIY “contact us” form software, or I guess if you wanted to roll your own that’s an option too. I’d be more concerned about keeping it locked down/secure.

Keep in mind for the internet your friends would likely need business class internet with multiple static IPs so you can give your little DIY box its own public IP address. Many (most?) residential internet service providers do not allow self hosting websites on their network and they’d be dynamic IP anyway though you could work around that somewhat with dynamic DNS since you’re going to need to purchase a domain name and point it to somewhere anyway.

run an e-mail service (about 10 accounts for now but with possibilities of expanding it to support more)

Like others said you really don’t want to go that route unless you’re well versed in that area. It would be annoying for a business especially a new one, those emails will likely keep going into other provider’s spam folders for a good period of time. All the big mainstream email providers are notorious for not trusting new email domains / new IP addresses.

Seems easier to just go to Google Workspace / Microsoft 365 / whatever other provider you like to use, presumably the business has a business use case for reliable email among other things.

Bonus: Those cloud services can easily host simple contact forms for you so maybe that’s your all in one solution. Look into Google Forms and similar.

and to store and remote access documents.

That sounds like the above commercial cloud solutions again :)

But sure technically you could go through the extra step hosting that yourself. Depends on how the business wants to use/access this stuff, it’s really a question for them. Could be as simple as a Windows server with RDP (if they’re Windows people & just want to log into something “windows” to browse/open files) or maybe multi-user Linux with VNC (the geeks might like, maybe not so much the general Windows/Mac users). Or if you’re trying to do something web oriented maybe something like Nextcloud if you want to do all this in a web browser.

You should triple check what exactly they are expecting when it comes to remote access documents… you really don’t want to spend the time setting up something that they totally weren’t expecting and end up hating.

But, regardless, blocking any registrars that size the way you’re describing would break way more businesses and hurt the recipient provider’s own reputation.

Yeah I thought that too but when speaking with the email admin that was blocking Namecheap while figuring this out they had already decided it wasn’t worth trying to allow the 1% of valid emails vs the 99% spam emails they felt they received via Namecheap domains.

This honestly starting to sound more and more like a smear campaign

Smear against whom? I’m a Namecheap customer, just relaying my own experiences using them. Besides that quirk I like them fine as a registrar… I know it sounds dumb but I even renewed my domains there even after those email issues.

It’s fine, you don’t need to believe me as I said it’s just my own experience using Namecheap domains for emails. But you could just google around, you’ll see plenty of people discussing Namecheap & looking for solutions to block them (or solutions to successfully send emails with hem)… it’s not something I randomly made up if that’s what you’re implying.

e.g.

https://community.spiceworks.com/t/blocking-emails-based-on-registrar/816565

https://tacit.livejournal.com/608386.html

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/05/why-do-scammers-love-namecheap/

https://www.reddit.com/r/NameCheap/comments/13t6fvm/namecheaps_private_email_is_blacklisted_by/

https://www.reddit.com/r/NameCheap/comments/wlb6vp/namecheap_making_it_too_easy_to_register_domains/

https://www.reddit.com/r/NameCheap/comments/tz4mkb/my_emails_are_always_going_in_the_spam_folder_of/

https://www.reddit.com/r/NameCheap/comments/ye358x/i_am_getting_a_ton_of_spam_scams_from_namecheap/

etc.

If you’re using Google Workspace, Google will give you the appropriate DMARC, DKIM and SPF records to add to your DNS. The NS themselves should resolve the records and provide the recipient server with the values you’ve entered, thereby ensuring delivery.

Sure. But why would that matter when you’re dealing with hostile 3rd party email providers that intentionally want to blackhole all email domains at Namecheap? But yes, just to clarify I do configure DMARC/DKIM/SPF and that works great for most cases.

I’m just describing what worked for me though in truth I don’t know exactly how these hostile email providers actually determine the domain is hosted at Namecheap. My hunch is that they are using a lookup & finding the nameserver for the domain & have already blacklisted Namecheap’s default free nameserver IP addresses. For whatever reason those same hostile email providers don’t seem to be blacklisting Namecheap’s paid nameserver but I think that sort of makes sense…

The larger issue is that Namecheap is known for cheap domains that scammers/spammers tend to buy in bulk & then use to spam with. Those same scammers/spammers aren’t trying to spend extra money so they only ever use the default free Namecheap nameservers.

If you use Namecheap for email domain(s) you may want to consider also splurging for their PremiumDNS to keep your domain(s) off spam blocks at other email providers.

I help maintain some emails at Gmail/Google Workspace but the domains themselves are at Namecheap. For a while there were complaints that some emails never landed in other people’s inboxes… this led me to talk about the issue with one of the email provider recipients based in the UK & apparently they were null routing anything coming from Namecheap since they felt a lot of spam came from them. But after some experimenting I figured out their system (& probably others) were figuring out they were Namecheap domains via the default FreeDNS they use. On a hunch I switched those domains over to PremiumDNS and after that all our emails were landing in other inboxes correctly. I guess maybe it makes sense, a typical spammer buying a cheap domain at Namecheap isn’t going to splurge for the higher end DNS service for it.

I’m not saying all email providers treat Namecheap domains as spam but just be warned there definitely ones out there that do.

Bummer, the formfactor / specs look okay but it’s kind of a dead end if I can’t just install & use a vanilla Debian OS or similar.

With all the NAS OS options probably Synology has the best one but even there I don’t actually want to get locked into that. I doubt this UGOS software can match Synology’s let alone Debian.

If it’s any consolation it looks like UGREEN is responding to comments about installing other OSes at their kickstarter page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/urgreen/ugreen-nasync-next-level-storage-limitless-possibilities/comments

Interesting, though I suspect that is a false positive, it’s happened before with that software

https://rejetto.com/forum/index.php?topic=9037.0

Most likely because it is a self-contained web server executable? That sort of software would seem suspicious and similar to other sorts of virus/malware.

Granted I have not used it in a while but I’d be surprised if it were true, their forums and github would be full of reports of malware.

https://github.com/rejetto/hfs

That aside you have plenty of other options to use if you prefer to use something else.

Syncthing, Resilio Sync, or one of those browser based p2p file sends e.g. https://file.pizza or similar.

If both p2p ends know how to use torrents then creating a simple torrent to share to the other peer would work fine. But that requires slightly more IT competence especially if someone needs to open a port forward (ideally you would make sure you have your own port forwarded so the other party doesn’t have to worry about this).

If you’re doing this more than once it might be worth setting up a simple server e.g. HFS is a nice open source/free HTTP file server, been a while since I used it but it still seems to be active https://www.rejetto.com/hfs/

Sucks but not surprising. Broadcom has a history of doing things like this, ugh. Even with their paid products they jack up the price so much that the only customers that stick around are the business enterprise types that are locked in & can’t easily migrate for various reasons.

and opened port 587 in my router

Agreed with the other comment, you definitely don’t need or want to do that on your end. Note that your self hosted instance is trying to establish an outgoing connection with a random port to port 587 at wherever your hosted email is e.g. yourdockeripaddress:randomport --> mydomain.com.au:587

I don’t have Bitwarden self hosted so can’t offer much advice on a solution but…

I’ve also tried to connect with my gmail but no luck. When I try to verify my email I just get “An unhandled server error has occurred”

This makes me think there’s something off with your environment, or the Bitwarden instance itself. Is there a way for you to verify that you can actually use those SMTP servers outside of Bitwarden? This sounds silly but in the past I’ve done a test installation of an email client with ability to connect to 3rd party SMTP servers e.g. Thunderbird just to verify my own internet connection can actually initiate an SMTP connection to an external server. You want to at least rule out that the hosted email server isn’t blocking you and/or have some over-active firewall on your end blocking things.

This is all in the absence of more verbose logging (not sure if Docker or Bitwarden can give you that, something worth checking).

However, the server doesn’t have the best power consumption, so I’d like to use WoL to remotely turn it on.

When you say remotely you mean over the internet, right? Or did you mean remotely within the same LAN e.g. from your living room or wherever.

By default WOL doesn’t work over the internet AFAIK. The wikipedia page mentions it a bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake-on-LAN#Subnet_directed_broadcasts

Like others said you may be able to get that going with a VPN or anything VPN-like that allows broadcasts between connected systems. Or if your motherboard supports IPMI / IMM you should be able to connect to the system & perform power functions that way.

In my case my motherboard doesn’t have those sort of management functions so in the end I settled on logging into my router remotely & initiated WOL through there. That could be another option for you if your network router is capable of sending WOL packets to the LAN.

However, the server doesn’t have the best power consumption, so I’d like to use WoL to remotely turn it on.

You may need to reach out to your VPN provider’s support to check if that is a supported feature. Many VPN providers with port forward support can only do it within their application.

May also want to post over in !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

From OP’s link under the “operate a Snowflake proxy” section

You can join thousands of volunteers from around the world who have a Snowflake proxy installed and running. There is no need to worry about which websites people are accessing through your Snowflake proxy. Their visible browsing IP address will match their Tor exit node, not yours.

A Snowflake proxy is not a Tor exit node.