Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) #483

andrus · 2023-12-09T14:15:14Z

I am trying to upgrade Bootique integration of SJM from 7.4.0 to 8.x, but the custom mailer can no longer obtain the preconfigured SJM Mailer. Somewhere along the way MailerRegularBuilderImpl.buildServerConfig() started returning null when there is a custom mailer present. So that code that worked previously stopped working.

An earlier issue #375 expalins the motivation for this particular custom mailer. Its goal is not to have a fully custom transport, but rather to override recipients at the transport level without changing to/cc/bcc of the original message. So I would very much want to reuse SJM transport. Having said that, I do feel like using a custom mailer for my purpose is too fragile, and I'd rather there was an option in the EmailBuilder to provide "recipient override" address for testing.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

bbottema · 2023-12-10T14:47:15Z

Thanks for reporting @andrus. Let's have a look.

I am trying to upgrade Bootique integration of SJM from 7.4.0 to 8.x, but the custom mailer can no longer obtain the preconfigured SJM Mailer. Somewhere along the way MailerRegularBuilderImpl.buildServerConfig() started returning null when there is a custom mailer present. So that code that worked previously stopped working.

Well, since Simple Java Mail is not the one sending the mail anymore, there is no relevant server config. In fact, that method used to validate the data like mandatory host, which makes no sense if you use your own implementation (aside from that, this method is documented as for internal use).

However, I understand you have a use case here, so let's look at that.

An earlier issue #375 expalins the motivation for this particular custom mailer. Its goal is not to have a fully custom transport, but rather to override recipients at the transport level without changing to/cc/bcc of the original message. So I would very much want to reuse SJM transport. Having said that, I do feel like using a custom mailer for my purpose is too fragile, and I'd rather there was an option in the EmailBuilder to provide "recipient override" address for testing.

So really, your custom implementation wants to send it with Simple Java Mail still, so why not just use a separate Mailer and move the server config there?

andrus · 2023-12-10T15:01:57Z

Thanks for the quick reply!

So really, your custom implementation wants to send it with Simple Java Mail still, so why not just use a separate Mailer and move the server config there?

This may actually work! Instead of fighting with CustomMailer and related lifecycle, I might decorate / subclass a Mailer, overriding its sendMail. Let me try it.

bbottema · 2023-12-10T15:14:29Z

Ok, that's not what I intended :D - I thought you might just configure two mailers separately. One properly configured for everything but sending, but with custom mailer allowing you to do any overrides. And then a dumb sender that you relay the modified Email to (possibly configured as a cluster).

But still, let me know how your experiment turns out :)

andrus · 2023-12-10T15:40:50Z

And then a dumb sender that you relay the modified Email to (possibly configured as a cluster).

Unfortunately, Email object does not have a "recipient override" property. With Email, I can wipe out "to/cc/bcc", and replace them with the "override" address, but that does not allow the recipient of the "overridden" message (e.g. a QA team member) to inspect how the original email would have looked like without the override. That's why I need to mess with the transport directly.

bbottema · 2023-12-10T15:52:34Z

Can you share the code you used before this? I'm not sure I follow the semantics of your override use-case.

andrus · 2023-12-10T15:54:36Z

Here is the CustomMailer written against SJM 7.4.0:

https://github.com/bootique/bootique-simplejavamail/blob/c8d4606eddbcf80d9390953adaee302f3e341bc2/bootique-simplejavamail-jakarta/src/main/java/io/bootique/simplejavamail/MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.java#L60

andrus · 2023-12-10T15:59:48Z

Essentially, I am taking advantage of the difference between the SMTP "envelope" destination addresses and the addresses in the message itself. Overriding the former, and preserving the latter allows to create a nice test experience.

bbottema · 2023-12-10T20:39:33Z

Hhm, the current version of TransportRunner doesn't even support recipients separately, so this won't even fly. I'd have to think deeply about allowing some way of interception or overriding behaviour. The Custom Mailer concept wasn't designed or meant for affecting existing internal behaviour; it was meant to replace it with your own.

bbottema · 2023-12-11T12:45:24Z

Thinking out loud, the problem with this is that 'overriding' behaviour can apply to every step of the mailing process. So do I devise some kind of step-filter concept, where each step a filter can be inserted. Or do I approach this from very specific use cases (such as your) and devise a solution for that.

andrus · 2023-12-11T14:22:20Z

I have only a superficial familiarity with all the mail RFCs, but it seems like providing a model that describes all possible properties (e.g. explicit properties of the SMTP "envelope" on the Email object) is more beneficial than extra override hooks. Though one approach does not preclude the other.

bbottema · 2023-12-11T19:59:14Z

I think I have a clear understanding now and I'm looking at some solutions, but I'm still a little confused as to why you need MailerRegularBuilderImpl.buildServerConfig(). If I understand correctly, you provide your own CustomMailer which goes to TransportRunner.sendMessage() with your own recipients. Where does the server config come into play?

andrus · 2023-12-11T20:19:25Z

Good question. It didn't fail before. I just pushed a branch with my attempt to upgrade the existing code base to 8.x, and if you run mvn clean verify on it, there will be a failure.

https://github.com/bootique/bootique-simplejavamail/tree/8

bbottema · 2023-12-12T10:47:57Z

I'm not able to build it with Maven 3.8.6. What version are you on? Actually, just a stacktrace will do for me.

andrus · 2023-12-12T12:59:26Z

It builds for me on Mac with either 3.8.x or 3.9.x versions of Maven, Java 11, 17, 21. Master should build successfully, branch 8 should result in a unit test failure.

bbottema · 2023-12-12T13:08:28Z

If you could provide a stack trace, then that's enough I think.

andrus · 2023-12-12T13:14:35Z

What happens is that instead of the preconfigured Mailer, in the presence of CustomMailer shown on that branch, SJM implicitly creates a new stack with default settings, and then the exception is caused by the attempt to connect to localhost:25 instead od the right port.

org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.MailerException: Failed to send email [ID: '<2027227708.1.1702386582319@[192.168.16.2]>'], reason: Unknown error
	at org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.SendMailClosure.handleException(SendMailClosure.java:85)
	at org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.SendMailClosure.executeClosure(SendMailClosure.java:76)
	at org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.AbstractProxyServerSyncingClosure.run(AbstractProxyServerSyncingClosure.java:56)
	at org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.MailerImpl.sendMail(MailerImpl.java:364)
	at io.bootique.simplejavamail.SimpleJavaMailDeliveryIT.sendSyncNoRetrieve(SimpleJavaMailDeliveryIT.java:241)
	at io.bootique.simplejavamail.SimpleJavaMailDeliveryIT.sendMail_RecipientOverride(SimpleJavaMailDeliveryIT.java:206)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:77)
	at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
	at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:568)
	at org.junit.platform.commons.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethod(ReflectionUtils.java:727)
	at org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.MethodInvocation.proceed(MethodInvocation.java:60)
...
Caused by: org.simplejavamail.smtpconnectionpool.TransportHandlingException: Error when trying to open connection to the server, session:
	{mail.transport.protocol=smtp, mail.smtp.writetimeout=60000, mail.smtp.ssl.trust=*, mail.smtp.starttls.required=false, mail.smtp.starttls.enable=true, mail.smtp.timeout=60000, SESSION_BASED_EMAIL_TO_MIME_MESSAGE_CONVERTER_KEY=SessionBasedEmailToMimeMessageConverter(session=jakarta.mail.Session@67fe380b, operationalConfig=OperationalConfigImpl(async=false, properties={}, sessionTimeout=60000, threadPoolSize=2, threadPoolKeepAliveTime=10, clusterKey=d7252774-04fa-47f9-907b-f46b990e75d9, connectionPoolCoreSize=0, connectionPoolMaxSize=4, connectionPoolClaimTimeoutMillis=2147483647, connectionPoolExpireAfterMillis=5000, connectionPoolLoadBalancingStrategy=ROUND_ROBIN, transportModeLoggingOnly=false, debugLogging=false, disableAllClientValidation=false, sslHostsToTrust=[], trustAllSSLHost=true, verifyingServerIdentity=true, executorService=org.simplejavamail.internal.batchsupport.concurrent.NonJvmBlockingThreadPoolExecutor@4a325eb9[Running, pool size = 0, active threads = 0, queued tasks = 0, completed tasks = 0], executorServiceIsUserProvided=false, customMailer=io.bootique.simplejavamail.MailerWithOverriddenRecipients@3dedb4a6), emailGovernance=EmailGovernanceImpl(emailValidator=EmailValidator[validationRuleCount=3], emailDefaults=Email{
	id=null
	sentDate=null
	fromRecipient=null,
	replyToRecipients=[],
	bounceToRecipient=null,
	text='null',
	textHTML='null',
	textCalendar='null (method: null)',
	contentTransferEncoding='quoted-printable',
	subject='null',
	recipients=[]
}, emailOverrides=Email{
	id=null
	sentDate=null
	fromRecipient=null,
	replyToRecipients=[],
	bounceToRecipient=null,
	text='null',
	textHTML='null',
	textCalendar='null (method: null)',
	contentTransferEncoding='quoted-printable',
	subject='null',
	recipients=[]
}, maximumEmailSize=null)), simplejavamail.transportstrategy=SMTP, mail.smtp.connectiontimeout=60000}
	at org.simplejavamail.smtpconnectionpool.TransportAllocator.connectTransport(TransportAllocator.java:73)
	at org.simplejavamail.smtpconnectionpool.TransportAllocator.allocate(TransportAllocator.java:45)
	at org.simplejavamail.smtpconnectionpool.TransportAllocator.allocate(TransportAllocator.java:28)
	at org.bbottema.genericobjectpool.GenericObjectPool.claimOrCreateNewObjectIfSpaceLeft(GenericObjectPool.java:164)
	at org.bbottema.genericobjectpool.GenericObjectPool.claimOrCreateOrWaitUntilAvailable(GenericObjectPool.java:149)
	at org.bbottema.genericobjectpool.GenericObjectPool.claim(GenericObjectPool.java:93)
	at org.bbottema.clusteredobjectpool.core.ResourcePool.claim(ResourcePool.java:44)
	at org.bbottema.clusteredobjectpool.core.ResourceClusters.claimResourceFromCluster(ResourceClusters.java:124)
	at org.simplejavamail.internal.batchsupport.BatchSupport.getSessionTransportPoolableObject(BatchSupport.java:128)
	at org.simplejavamail.internal.batchsupport.BatchSupport.acquireTransport(BatchSupport.java:118)
	at io.bootique.simplejavamail.MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.sendUsingConnectionPool(MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.java:102)
	at io.bootique.simplejavamail.MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.sendMessage(MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.java:83)
	at io.bootique.simplejavamail.MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.sendMessage(MailerWithOverriddenRecipients.java:67)
	at org.simplejavamail.mailer.internal.SendMailClosure.executeClosure(SendMailClosure.java:67)
	... 75 more
Caused by: com.sun.mail.util.MailConnectException: Couldn't connect to host, port: localhost, 25; timeout 60000;
  nested exception is:
	java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
	at com.sun.mail.smtp.SMTPTransport.openServer(SMTPTransport.java:2210)
	at com.sun.mail.smtp.SMTPTransport.protocolConnect(SMTPTransport.java:722)
	at jakarta.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:342)
	at jakarta.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:222)
	at jakarta.mail.Service.connect(Service.java:171)
	at org.simplejavamail.smtpconnectionpool.TransportAllocator.connectTransport(TransportAllocator.java:70)
	... 88 more
Caused by: java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
	at java.base/sun.nio.ch.Net.pollConnect(Native Method)
	at java.base/sun.nio.ch.Net.pollConnectNow(Net.java:672)
	at java.base/sun.nio.ch.NioSocketImpl.timedFinishConnect(NioSocketImpl.java:547)
	at java.base/sun.nio.ch.NioSocketImpl.connect(NioSocketImpl.java:602)
	at java.base/java.net.SocksSocketImpl.connect(SocksSocketImpl.java:327)
	at java.base/java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:633)
	at com.sun.mail.util.WriteTimeoutSocket.connect(WriteTimeoutSocket.java:91)
	at com.sun.mail.util.SocketFetcher.createSocket(SocketFetcher.java:333)
	at com.sun.mail.util.SocketFetcher.getSocket(SocketFetcher.java:214)
	at com.sun.mail.smtp.SMTPTransport.openServer(SMTPTransport.java:2160)
	... 93 more

…eceiver(s)

bbottema · 2023-12-12T15:51:56Z

Ok well, I'll leave that for what it is for the moment 😅

I've released 8.4.0, which includes the override receivers feature, see documentation here.

andrus · 2023-12-12T20:08:54Z

That did it. I was able to implement a Mailer decorator that does not require transport hacking. Way cleaner than before. Thanks!!

…ll) [skip ci]

jkorri · 2023-12-13T12:53:32Z

This looks great! And it seems this is not just for testing. Amazon SES strongly suggests you to send messages with one api call per recipient (https://aws.amazon.com//blogs/messaging-and-targeting/how-to-send-messages-to-multiple-recipients-with-amazon-simple-email-service-ses/). Am I correct in assuming this will make it possible to adhere to that guideline and have the e.g. the to-field contain all the recipients?

bbottema · 2023-12-13T13:10:25Z

I think the SMTP protocol makes sure each envelope recipient is handled separately. It may be a single SMTP session, but multiple send actions on the protocol level.

andrus mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2023

Upgrade SimpleJavaMail Jakarta to v8 bootique/bootique-simplejavamail#8

Closed

bbottema added the need-user-input label Dec 10, 2023

bbottema changed the title ~~CustomMailer can no longer reuse preconfigured mailer transport~~ Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) Dec 12, 2023

bbottema added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 12, 2023

#483: Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level r…

d1c5134

…eceiver(s)

bbottema closed this as completed Dec 12, 2023

bbottema added this to the 8.4.0 milestone Dec 12, 2023

bbottema added enhancement Priority-Low and removed need-user-input labels Dec 12, 2023

bbottema added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2023

#483: provide API to clear the list too (needed for junit tests as we…

e211abc

…ll) [skip ci]

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) #483

Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) #483

andrus commented Dec 9, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 11, 2023

andrus commented Dec 11, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

andrus commented Dec 11, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

jkorri commented Dec 13, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 13, 2023

Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) #483

Enhancement: add native support for overriding envelope-level receiver(s) #483

Comments

andrus commented Dec 9, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 • edited Loading

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 • edited Loading

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023 • edited Loading

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 11, 2023

andrus commented Dec 11, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 11, 2023 • edited Loading

andrus commented Dec 11, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023 • edited Loading

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023

andrus commented Dec 12, 2023

jkorri commented Dec 13, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 13, 2023

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bbottema commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

andrus commented Dec 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bbottema commented Dec 11, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bbottema commented Dec 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading