What exactly are you trying to achieve with that distinction. Obviously, if you can host at home then you have more control then over a VPS but it is also more work, especially if you want to prevent any disruption. Basically, your options are in increasing amount of control you have:
1) Free email provider (you have not recourse for anything)
2) Paid email provider (a little better)
3) Free/paid email provider with your own domain (gives you disaster recovery without the provider's cooperation)
4) Running your own MX but doing delivery via another provider (perhaps a bit more privacy)
5) Running your own MTA/etc. on a managed host, e.g. a VPS
6) Running your own MTA/etc. on a colocated host
7) Running your own MTA/etc. on a host on your own premises
Even with the strictest definition of self hosting, i.e. (7) you still are subject to your ISP recording who you communicate with (and more since SMTP is not consistently encrypted) and are still subject to law enforcement accessing your data. (6) and (5) mean you do need to trust your hoster to not look at the data on your instance but at least for now that seems to be a reasonable asumption unlike for (1) to (4) where at least automated scans you don't control are the norm.
I agree, 7 is the closest we come to actually self hosting..
Unfortunately, due to a total lack of regulation, or distinction as to what constitutes Internet access, 7 is becoming increasingly problematic because ISPs are increasingly doing NAT and blocking outgoing packets.
I won't go as far as to say that, unless you're your own ISP, you're not self-hosting, but I'm leaning in that direction, from having experienced the increasingly firm hold that ISPs have around my neck.. It was not always like this. There was indeed a time when a connection to the Internet meant that you got to participate on the same terms at everyone else. I want that level of participation back for everyone. Participation by every connected device should be the default, not the exception.
Usually, VPS is taken to mean the virtual private server that is rented at some company, not one of the virtual machines you host on the physical hardware that is located on your private property.
It's real simple, if you don't own the hardware, if it's not physically available to you to go whack with an axe, then you don't own anything, you're just renting and entirely at the mercy of whoever you're renting from.
self-hosting doesn't mean you have to own the hardware?
Also, "owning" and "being able to walk over and physically whack it with an axe" are not the same thing. Servers can be leased, and there is something called "server housing" which breaks your analogy
yea, it does not, because people are using the word wrong..
Saying you own your leased server is the same as saying you own your rented apartment or leased car.. It's not yours if it's someone elses, in the same way the movies on netflix are inherently less yours than the movies on your laserdiscs, dvd's or blu-rays.
