Postal vs imapsync
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted mail servers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Postal
Complete mail delivery platform for outgoing email
VS
imapsync
Synchronization and migration tool between IMAP accounts
| Feature | Postal | imapsync |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Mail Servers | Mail Servers |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Ruby | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 2,048 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 16,724 | ★ 4,118 |
| First released | 2017 | 2003 |
| Replaces | SendGrid, Mailgun, Postmark | IMAP migration services |
Why pick each one
Choose imapsync if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (4.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in Shell
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Postal or imapsync better?
Neither is universally better. Postal has the larger community, while imapsync is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Postal and imapsync free and open-source?
Yes. Postal is licensed under MIT and imapsync under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Postal and imapsync with Docker?
Postal: yes. imapsync: check the project docs for container support.