||Can we put it in a Snippet? /j||

HHello, I’m Allie!Isn't the docs thing just about the fact that you can't create a rule that **onl...

DarkDeviL•2/4/24, 5:18 PM

Last I heard about it was that such as e.g. the *.email*.email records, even though they might work, they were not actually supported.

DDarkDeviL Last I heard about it was that such as e.g. the `*.email` records, even though t...

dave•2/4/24, 5:19 PM

wait is me using

email

email

some special allowed edge case that I guessed...?

dave•2/4/24, 5:19 PM

I thought *.anything*.anything would work.

HHello, I’m Allie!||Can we put it in a Snippet? /j||

dave•2/4/24, 5:20 PM

eh we do more complicated routing decisions that are much easier to do in a Worker.

Ddave eh we do more complicated routing decisions that are much easier to do in a Work...

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:20 PM

I mean a Snippet is a Worker, it is just free

HHello, I’m Allie!I mean a Snippet **is** a Worker, it is just free

dave•2/4/24, 5:20 PM

it's a big Worker lol

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:20 PM

But it doesn't support anything other than HTTP afaik

Ddave it's a big Worker lol

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:20 PM

Yeah, that's what the /j was for

HHello, I’m Allie!But it doesn't support anything other than HTTP afaik

dave•2/4/24, 5:21 PM

what else would you need to support other than HTTP?

HHello, I’m Allie!Yeah, that's what the /j was for

dave•2/4/24, 5:21 PM

eh for simple things it would work I think!

Ddave what else would you need to support other than HTTP?

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:22 PM

All of the Worker tasks. Like a Workers free tier that isn't bounded by number of requests, but rather size of Workers/execution time

HHello, I’m Allie!All of the Worker tasks. Like a Workers free tier that isn't bounded by number o...

dave•2/4/24, 5:23 PM

oh we're talking about snippets? (We still haven't used them, don't fully understand their limitations yet tbh.)

Ddave oh we're talking about snippets? (We still haven't used them, don't fully unders...

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:23 PM

I would assume so:

dave•2/4/24, 5:23 PM

does the 5ms count when you're awaiting on a fetch?

dave•2/4/24, 5:23 PM

if not, 5ms doesn't seem that bad.

Ddave does the 5ms count when you're awaiting on a fetch?

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:24 PM

Afaik it is CPU time, though the docs are a little ambiguous

dave•2/4/24, 5:24 PM

Our catch-all email Worker takes ~6.6ms on average of CPU time and it could be optimized if we felt like it.

dave•2/4/24, 5:24 PM

it does crypto in multiple places iirc

Ddave Our catch-all email Worker takes ~6.6ms on average of CPU time and it could be o...

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:25 PM

But yeah, you can't actually handle any events other than a

fetch

fetch

event in a Snippet, so it wouldn't matter.

Hello, I’m Allie!OP•2/4/24, 5:25 PM

Or, that is to say, you can't yet

Ddave wait is me using `email` some special allowed edge case that I guessed...?

DarkDeviL•2/4/24, 5:42 PM

Actually, - my understanding of it comes from before subdomains were supported in the Dashboard, where my understanding was, ... that it was a "hacky workaround" that you shouldn't rely on, because it wasn't officially supported.

DarkDeviL•2/4/24, 5:43 PM

If the Dashboard doesn't allow you to add ".email.email" as a sub-domain, I would personally still not consider it to be officially supported.

DDarkDeviL If the Dashboard doesn't allow you to add "`.email`" as a sub-domain, I would **...

dave•2/4/24, 5:44 PM

it makes sense it works to hit the default catch-all Worker

dave•2/4/24, 5:44 PM

I agree I wouldn't depend on it for setting subdomain routing rules

dave•2/4/24, 5:44 PM

but I think the catch-all case is reliable

Ddave but I think the catch-all case is reliable

DarkDeviL•2/4/24, 5:48 PM

My point is simply that I wouldn't suggest relying or depending on something that isn't officially supported, no matter how well / reliable it appears to be working.

DarkDeviL•2/4/24, 5:49 PM

And especially not if we're talking about it for mission critical things.

jordan•2/4/24, 9:17 PM

Has anyone implemented nested replies (replying to a reply) from a worker?

JJohn Spurlock Curious if the scenario of using cf email routing _only_ on a subdomain is meant...

John Spurlock•2/6/24, 11:09 PM

(bumping a question from over the weekend) Curious if the scenario of using cf email routing only on a subdomain is meant to be supported?

TTraffy I have added my email to gmail alias. I can also send email from gmail. So in th...

Chaika•2/7/24, 4:23 AM

Gmail. You can't send mail via Cloudflare except via Workers to your verified addresses or in reply to messages via email worker

Chaika•2/7/24, 4:23 AM

also iirc gmail like that always fails spf because the way it sends/alignment, been a while though

TTraffy How would you suggest to use cloudflare to receive and send email?

Chaika•2/7/24, 5:00 AM

Sadly, you don't. CF can't send mail like a normal email provider/solution. Sounds like you want a more traditional email setup like Fastmail, Google Workspace, ProtonMail that works with Custom Domains and can send and receive.

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 10:46 AM

ohm, sometimes MailChannel just doesn't send any email

CChaika Gmail. You can't send mail via Cloudflare except via Workers to your verified ad...

dave•2/7/24, 4:56 PM

we have outgoing emails from Gmail going through a Cloudflare Worker, but it's a messed up setup lol

Cchientrm.com ohm, sometimes MailChannel just doesn't send any email 😳

Unsmart•2/7/24, 5:09 PM

Afaik it will silently block any email they consider spam so the request wont error but not really sure on how that stuff works

UUnsmart Afaik it will silently block any email they consider spam so the request wont er...

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 5:29 PM

Uhm, I took some debug. It was my Pages CPU timeout when invoking bounded my email Workers

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 5:30 PM

I took some work around and now it sends email nicely again

Unsmart•2/7/24, 5:30 PM

That will do it too :LUL:

UUnsmart That will do it too :LUL:

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 5:31 PM

it's weird, they're just

fetch

fetch

from my Pages to bounded Mail Workers and from the Workerse to Mailchannels.
There was no heavy computation

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 5:32 PM

But when the request from my Pages -> Proxy express.js server -> Mail workers, it works fine again, no CancelledCancelled

chientrm.com•2/7/24, 6:05 PM

oh, just invoke via https url is fine, no timeout

KNOX•2/7/24, 8:29 PM

How do i set up a worker so that when a specific email address receives an email it gets sent to my server via an http post request?

Adi•2/8/24, 12:44 AM

Hey all, I'm sure this is a noob question, but is it possible / is there a walkthrough on how to send outbound emails via cloudflare?
I have email routing setup, but now I want to send emails out via that domain. Specifically looking for a low cost / free way of doing so.

Adi•2/8/24, 1:06 AM

I retract my question. For anyone else, this guide worked amazingly well - https://jay.gooby.org/2022/05/06/use-a-basic-gmail-account-to-send-mail-as-with-a-domain-that-uses-cloudflare-email-routing

AAdi I retract my question. For anyone else, this guide worked amazingly well - https...

DarkDeviL•2/8/24, 2:03 AM

"Amazingly well"?

I strongly suggest that you look at:

email-routing

https://community.cloudflare.com/t/reply-from-a-custom-address-email/455857/7

Adi•2/8/24, 2:05 AM

Yes you're right. It's not a perfect solution, and I definitely noticed the "sent via gmai" mark that never leaves. But I suppose this is as far as it can go with the way email routing works right?

DarkDeviL•2/8/24, 2:05 AM

And then remove the "a mx include:_spf.google.coma mx include:_spf.google.com" part from your SPF.

: Cloudflare HTTP Reverse Proxies will never send on your domain's behalf.

mxmx: Is pointing to Cloudflare's INBOUND mail servers, they do NOT send OUTBOUND and should not be listed in your SPF.

include:_spf.google.cominclude:_spf.google.com: The "trick" will always authenticate as the @gmail.com@gmail.com, and expose the real Gmail address. Since the SPF is done on gmail.comgmail.com, you're overauthorizing by having include:_spf.google.cominclude:_spf.google.com, which - depending on the eyes looking at it, is a security issue / risk.

DDarkDeviL And then remove the "`a mx include:_spf.google.com`" part from your SPF. `a`: C...

Adi•2/8/24, 2:07 AM

Oh dang, really good points! Will make those changes, thanks.

||Can we put it in a Snippet? /j||

Similar Threads

Similar Threads

Similar Threads