Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[communication/send-(templated-)email] Confusion around Mailchimp × Mandrill #248

Closed
jnv opened this issue Apr 25, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #262
Closed

[communication/send-(templated-)email] Confusion around Mailchimp × Mandrill #248

jnv opened this issue Apr 25, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #262
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jnv
Copy link
Contributor

jnv commented Apr 25, 2022

Currently both of our transactional profiles provide map for the mailchimp provider, which is confusing for users unfamiliar with Mailchimp's offering.

I just got from a support call with user who tried to use the Mailchimp map with Mailchimp's API key and was getting Invalid key error. The solution was to navigate to Transactional Email in Mailchimp's Dashboard and enter Mandrillapp dashboard.

Apparently the original intent behind the mailchimp provider was to respect that it's a single company and product. However, this seems to be confusing and could even turn problematic with other, Mailchimp-specific map.

My suggestion here is to introduce a new mandrillapp provider and change existing maps for Mailchimp to use that provider instead.

Before we do that, make sure that Mailchimp's APIs require a different API key for sure.

@jnv jnv added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 25, 2022
@jnv
Copy link
Contributor Author

jnv commented May 27, 2022

For the record, Mailchimp's and Mandrill's APIs require different keys.

@jnv jnv closed this as completed in #262 May 27, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant