And staging is now using the Postmark API instead of SMTP to send mail :)
According to docs, the API is quicker to produce an error for bad messages, while SMTP might accept and put it in a queue first. It's in the 'differences' section here: https://postmarkapp.com/developer/user-guide/sending-email/sending-with-smtp
btw, just had a new user with a . in the gmail address subscribe to pipes. Since the public broker is already changed that really seems to work fine
the normalization and the rotating keys
Now have a test running every 5 minutes, that implements a small custom IdP: https://server.portier.io/stats.jsonl
Could make a nice graph out of that sometime :)
@onli Hoping I can bother you to maybe do a quick read-through of the docs on the new config options here: https://github.com/portier/portier-broker/pull/210/files#diff-482d762113d87ccfaae28adb3c4a2262 🙂
I noticed the DMARC spec references the same public suffix browsers use: https://publicsuffix.org
So maybe we should use that instead. And make it a run-time thing, so we bundle a version and read it on startup, allowing the user to update it independently.
@onli Moar settings! 🎉 Hope you won't mind maybe reviewing the docs here again? 😇
https://github.com/portier/portier-broker/blob/7111ad531186d2ea7c5f40e995d19fda33ed1541/config.toml.dist#L132-L179
https://github.com/portier/portier-broker/blob/7111ad531186d2ea7c5f40e995d19fda33ed1541/config.toml.dist#L132-L179
Will have to think on that. I'm hoping for something simpler than another fetch & cache solution.
I immediately thought of "download it on startup when no custom list is provided"
Maybe something I could try to implement?
Thinking about the public suffixes thing, I guess we just have to fetch at an interval in the broker? I don't really see another way. (The only other thing I can think about is doing it outside the broker and adding SIGHUP config reloading support. While reloading is nice to have, having a separate thing to fetch the list complicates setup.)
But it looks like the list at publicsuffix.org doesn't have Cache-Control headers. So we probably want to add functionality to override cache age in our fetching code. Plus we should keep using stale lists if fetching fails.
Could probably do something crude to handle failed fetches. Like still set a Redis TTL, but x3 the cache age, and then allow 3 fetches to fail before crashing. No complicated retry timer logic for MVP.
Today I spent a bit writing a Mailgun agent, but when it came time to write tests I realized that the only tests for the Postmark agent are the E2E tests, which are enabled due to the fact that Postmark supports sending test emails using a test API token. Unfortunately, Mailgun doesn't have a similar API. It looks like most Mailgun clients either mock the API, or use the actual, production API (which requires credentials, and incurs costs). If I contributed the agent, I'd definitely want there to be some sort of automated tests to make sure it doesn't break. I'm very much a novice when it comes to Rust, but if someone could take a look at how we could write Rust tests for the Postmark agent that don't actually hit the API, and simply compare the sent request to a fixture in the test, I could implement the same thing for a Mailgun provider.
(Also, if this would be more appropriate in a GitHub issue please let me know!)
Thinking we could add a hidden
postmark_email_api (doesn't need docs) that defaults to the currently hardcoded "https://api.postmarkapp.com/email". Then tests can start a dummy server and point the broker at it. (In the broker postmark code, we can then also get rid of the hacky is_test_request path.)
@dstaley Btw, thanks for looking into this, and the IE stuff! Really cool. Let me know if you want to try your hand at the above, or would rather have me look into it. (I may hopefully have some time this weekend.)
Just so I understand correctly, you're thinking of spawing a mock server, pointing the broker binary at that server via an environment variable, and then testing the requests to the mock server? If so, would those tests be Rust unit tests, or would this be part of the E2E test?
@dstaley Yes, that's correct. The test harness does the mocking in-process, for example: https://github.com/portier/portier-broker/blob/793c5987e744c6a864f38aff4dc8abcd55eccef2/tests/e2e/src/mailbox.js#L50-L61
I think right there is an okay place to add support for that, inside an
I think right there is an okay place to add support for that, inside an
if (TEST_MAILER === "mailgun") { ... }