标签：#API

The Complete Guide to OpenAI-Compatible APIs for Chinese LLMs One of the smartest decisions OpenAI made was making their API the de facto standard for LLM interaction. The openai Python package, the ChatCompletion interface, and the message format have become the HTTP of AI — nearly every major model provider now supports some form of OpenAI compatibility. This means you can swap models without changing your code. Here's how to use that to access China's best LLMs. The OpenAI SDK Pattern If you've used OpenAI's API, you already know the pattern: from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = " sk-... " ) response = client . chat . completions . create ( model = " gpt-4o " , messages = [{ " role " : " user " , " content " : " Hello! " }] ) To access Chinese models through an OpenAI-compatible gateway, you change exactly two things : client = OpenAI ( base_url = " https://api.tokenmaster.com/v1 " , # ← Changed api_key = " tm-... " # ← Changed ) Everything else stays the same. The same SDK, the same method calls, the same message format. What This Unlocks By switching to an OpenAI-compatible gateway for Chinese models, you gain access to: Model Family Top Models Competitive Advantage OpenAI-Compatible DeepSeek V4-Pro, V4 Flash, Coder Coding, math, reasoning ✅ Qwen (Alibaba) 3.7-Max, 3.5-Flash Long context (256K), multilingual ✅ GLM (ZhipuAI) 4.5, 4-Flash Reasoning, structured output ✅ Baichuan Baichuan 4 Chinese content generation ✅ All accessible through the same SDK, the same API key, the same base URL. Migration Guide Step 1: Get Your Gateway Key Sign up at an OpenAI-compatible gateway for Chinese models. Most offer free trial credits: # I use TokenMaster # Sign up at https://api.tokenmaster.com # Get your API key from the dashboard Step 2: Update Your Client Instantiation Python: # Before: OpenAI only import os from openai import OpenAI client = OpenAI ( api_key = os . getenv ( " OPENAI_API_KEY " )) # After: Multi-model access TM_KEY = os . getenv ( " TOKENM

How to Use Chinese LLMs Without a Chinese Phone Number If you've tried signing up for any Chinese AI service, you've seen the same message: Please enter your phone number (+86) to receive a verification code. This single requirement blocks most overseas developers from accessing some of the best-performing and most cost-effective LLMs on the market. This guide covers every workaround I've found — from least to most practical. The Problem China's major AI labs produce world-class models: DeepSeek — DeepSeek V4-Pro matches GPT-4o within 3-5% on coding benchmarks Qwen (Alibaba) — Qwen 3.7-Max beats GPT-4o on long-context tasks (256K tokens) GLM (ZhipuAI) — GLM-4.5 is competitive with Claude for reasoning tasks Baichuan — Strong for Chinese-language generation But every single one requires: A +86 Chinese phone number for registration Alipay or WeChat Pay for billing Chinese-language documentation Method 1: Virtual Chinese Phone Numbers (Fragile) Services like SMS-activate and 5sim offer temporary Chinese phone numbers for ~$1-2. The problem: Chinese providers have gotten aggressive about flagging virtual numbers. Your account gets banned within days. You lose any balance you've added. ❌ Not recommended — too unreliable for production use. Method 2: Third-Party Gateway Services (Recommended) The most practical solution is a gateway that handles the China-side complexity for you. These services: Maintain their own Chinese accounts and infrastructure Register with real Chinese business entities Handle Alipay/WeChat billing on their end Expose everything through a standard OpenAI-compatible API What this means for you: Sign up with email (no phone number needed) Pay via Stripe or PayPal Get a standard API key Use the OpenAI Python/Node.js SDK as-is Migration example (Python): # Before — can't access Chinese models at all # client = OpenAI(api_key="...") # Only works for OpenAI # After — full access to Chinese models client = OpenAI ( base_url = " https://api.tokenmaster.com

How to Access DeepSeek API from Outside China (2026 Guide) DeepSeek has quietly become one of the best open-weight LLM families available. Their V4-Pro model matches GPT-4o within 3-5% on coding benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) while costing roughly 90% less per token. The problem? Actually getting access as an overseas developer. The Registration Wall If you try to sign up for DeepSeek's official API directly, you'll hit this: ✕ +86 phone number required for SMS verification ✕ Alipay or WeChat Pay only — no Stripe, no PayPal ✕ Documentation is primarily in Chinese ✕ VPN required and it drops mid-request ✕ Different auth system than OpenAI This isn't a minor inconvenience — it's a hard blocker for most overseas developers. I spent a full weekend trying to work around it before finding a solution that actually worked for production use. Option 1: DIY Proxy (Not Recommended) You could technically set up a Chinese VPS as a relay, register through a Chinese friend's number, and proxy requests. I tried this approach. Problems: Your Chinese VPS adds 100-300ms latency You're responsible for keeping the integration working If your Chinese friend's number gets flagged, you're locked out No SLA, no support, no monitoring Payment still requires Alipay — you need a Chinese bank account or a friend After a weekend of futzing with this, I abandoned it. Not production-ready. Option 2: Third-Party Gateway (What I Use) There are now services that handle the China-side complexity and expose DeepSeek through a standard OpenAI-compatible API. They handle: Chinese phone number verification Alipay/WeChat payment (you pay via Stripe instead) API routing with global edge caching Load balancing across multiple Chinese providers Setup is literally two lines: # Before: Direct OpenAI client = OpenAI ( base_url = " https://api.openai.com/v1 " , api_key = OPENAI_KEY ) # After: Via gateway client = OpenAI ( base_url = " https://api.tokenmaster.com/v1 " , api_key = TM_KEY ) That's it. Same SDK, same i

One-time passcodes are everywhere: sign up for a service, log in from a new device, confirm an action, and a six-digit code lands in your email. A human glances at it and types it in. An automated flow, a signup script, an end-to-end test, or an AI agent connecting to a third-party service, can't glance at anything. It has to pull the code out of the mailbox programmatically, and that's a surprisingly fiddly job: the code arrives seconds after a trigger, it's buried in a templated email, and every sender formats it differently. This post covers extracting verification codes from two angles: the nylas CLI , which does it for you in one command, and the Email API pattern you build when it's part of a larger flow. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I just need the code. Two ways to get the code There are two paths depending on what you're building. For terminal workflows, local testing, or scripting a login, the CLI has a dedicated nylas otp command that finds the latest code in a mailbox and hands it to you. For an application or an agent that reacts to incoming mail, you build the extraction into your own flow: catch the message when it arrives, pull the body, and parse the code out. The difference is who drives. The CLI is pull-based: you ask for the latest code when you need it. The API pattern is push-based: a webhook tells you a message arrived, and your code extracts the value as part of handling it. Both end at the same place, a string of digits you feed into whatever's waiting for it, but the CLI is the fast path for a developer and the API pattern is the durable path for a product. In practice you use both: the CLI to learn which sender and code format you're dealing with during development, then that same understanding baked into the application pattern for production. Grab the latest code from the CLI When you've just triggered a code and want it now, nylas otp get finds the most recent one in your default accoun

A webhook endpoint is a public URL sitting on the internet, and anything on the internet can send it a POST . If your app acts on whatever lands there, an attacker who guesses the URL can forge events: fake an inbound email, trigger a workflow, or feed your system garbage. The fix is to confirm two things before you trust a request, that you own the endpoint and that Nylas actually sent the payload, and both are built into how webhooks work. This post covers verifying webhooks from two angles: the HTTP mechanics your endpoint implements, and the nylas CLI for testing a signature without standing up a server. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm debugging a signature mismatch. Two layers of webhook trust There are two separate checks, and they happen at different times. The first is a one-time endpoint challenge: when you register or activate a webhook, Nylas sends your URL a request with a challenge value you echo back, proving you control the endpoint. The second runs on every notification afterward: each delivery carries a cryptographic signature you verify against a shared secret, proving the payload is genuine and wasn't tampered with. You need both because they defend against different things. The challenge stops you from accidentally registering an endpoint you don't own and confirms the URL is live. The signature stops anyone else from posting forged events to that URL once it's known. Skip the signature check and your public endpoint will trust any POST that reaches it, which is the most common webhook security mistake. Pass the endpoint challenge The first time you set up a webhook or flip one to active , Nylas sends a GET request to your endpoint with a challenge query parameter. Your endpoint has to return the exact value of that challenge in the body of a 200 OK response, within 10 seconds, or the webhook won't verify. It's a quick handshake that proves the URL is yours and reachable. // Express: echo the ch

Every Nylas request you make on a user's behalf needs one thing first: their permission. Before you can list a mailbox, send on someone's behalf, or read a calendar, the user has to authorize your application through their provider, and that authorization is what's called a grant. Doing the OAuth dance yourself means registering with Google and Microsoft separately, handling each provider's consent screen, token exchange, and refresh quirks. Hosted OAuth collapses that into one flow that works the same across every provider. This post walks through connecting an account from two angles: the HTTP API your web app uses in production, and the nylas CLI for connecting a test account from the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I need a grant to develop against. What a grant is A grant is an authenticated connection to a single user's account. When a user authorizes your application, Nylas stores the connection and hands you a grant_id , a stable identifier you pass on every subsequent request to act on that user's email, calendar, or contacts. The grant is the unit of access: one user who connected one mailbox is one grant, and everything you build addresses /v3/grants/{grant_id}/... . Keep two credentials distinct here. Your API key authenticates your application to Nylas and goes in the Authorization header on every request; the grant_id identifies which connected user that request acts on. The API key is yours and stays on your backend, while a grant_id is minted per user when they connect. The grant is also where provider differences disappear. A Gmail grant and a Microsoft grant have different OAuth scopes and token mechanics underneath, but once connected, both are just a grant_id you use the same way. That's the point of hosted OAuth: you run one flow, the user picks their provider, and you get back the same kind of identifier regardless of who hosts the mailbox. Hosted OAuth supports Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,

Over the last year or so, I've noticed more developers talking about open source API tools. Not just...

APIs para agentes autónomos: lo que Prowl muestra (y no muestra) El snapshot actual de Prowl lista cinco APIs con score n/a. Eso ya es una señal: ninguna de estas herramientas tiene aún suficiente adopción o señales de ranking. Pero no por eso son irrelevantes. Al contrario, agrupan un patrón común: todas están diseñadas para que un agente de IA opere sin intervención humana directa. Los items y su función Apumail — casilla de correo nativa para agentes. Ofrece una API en texto plano, con negociación de contenido: text/plain para agentes, HTML para humanos. Útil para workflows donde el agente necesita recibir confirmaciones, códigos o enlaces verificables. RogerThat — capa de coordinación entre agentes. Mensajería en tiempo real pensada para que agentes autónomos se comuniquen entre sí. No es un chat humano, es infraestructura de sistema distribuido. DOBI — agente autónomo enfocado en DePIN y activos del mundo real. Ejecuta acciones on-chain dirigidas por un agente de IA. Combina blockchain con decisión autónoma. CIDIF — plataforma para gestionar solicitudes de fondos de I+D. Automatiza el proceso burocrático. No es un agente puro, pero su API podría integrarse con un agente que busque oportunidades de funding. Orquesta — orquestación de pipelines multi-paso para agentes. Permite componer, ejecutar y monitorizar workflows complejos. Es el eslabón que une agentes individuales en procesos coordinados. Patrón detectable Cuatro de cinco herramientas están directamente orientadas a agentes autónomos. La quinta (CIDIF) es una plataforma funcional que puede ser consumida por un agente. Esto indica una dirección clara en el ecosistema: la IA no solo habla con humanos, ahora necesita canales propios, comunicación entre sí, y capacidad de actuar sobre sistemas reales (blockchain, email, workflows). Señales no obvias Score n/a en todas : ninguna ha acumulado suficiente tráfico o votos para generar un score. Esto sugiere que el mercado de APIs para agentes está en etapa tempran

"What time works for everyone?" is a surprisingly hard question to answer in code. You have to read each person's calendar, line up the busy blocks, respect working hours and time zones, leave buffer time between meetings, and only then find the gaps everyone shares. The Nylas Availability API does all of that in one request: hand it a list of participants and a window, and it returns the time slots that actually work. This post covers finding meeting times from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm checking a calendar. Availability versus Free/Busy There are two endpoints here, and picking the right one saves you work. The Availability endpoint finds bookable slots across a group of participants, applying working hours, buffers, and meeting duration to return times you can actually book. Free/Busy is simpler: it returns the raw busy blocks for one or more email addresses over a window, leaving the slot math to you. Reach for Availability when the question is "when can these people meet?" and you want the answer as a list of open slots. Reach for Free/Busy when you only need to see when calendars are busy, for example to gray out times in a custom UI. Availability is a POST /v3/calendars/availability , an application-level call that takes participants by email, while Free/Busy is grant-scoped at POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/calendars/free-busy . This post focuses on Availability, since that's the one that answers the scheduling question directly. Find a time across participants The core request lists the participants and the window to search. Each participant is identified by email and must be associated with a valid Nylas grant, since the endpoint reads their calendars. You set start_time and end_time as Unix timestamps for the search window, duration_minutes for how long the meeting is, and interval_minutes for how the candidate start times ar

Writing a clear, well-structured email takes time, and it's the kind of task an LLM is genuinely good at. But wiring up your own prompt-to-email pipeline means picking a model, threading the original message in as context, handling streaming, and keeping it all behind your API keys. The Nylas Smart Compose endpoints do that for you: send a natural-language prompt, get back a written message body, and the reply variant pulls in the original email as context automatically. This post walks through Smart Compose from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm testing a prompt. How Smart Compose works Smart Compose is two endpoints that turn a prompt into a message body. You send a natural-language prompt , and the response comes back with a suggestion field holding the generated text. There's a POST /messages/smart-compose for writing a brand-new message, and a POST /messages/{message_id}/smart-compose for writing a reply, where the original message is folded into the context so the response actually answers it. The key thing to understand is that Smart Compose generates text, it doesn't send anything. The suggestion it returns is a message body you do something with: pass it straight to the Send Message endpoint , or pre-fill it into a draft for a human to review and edit first. That separation is deliberate, since it lets you put a person between the AI's output and the recipient, which is usually what you want for anything an LLM wrote. Two things to know before you start. Smart Compose runs against connected OAuth grants only, not Agent Accounts. The prompt also has a ceiling: up to 1,000 tokens, and a longer prompt returns an error. Generate a new message To write a fresh email, POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/messages/smart-compose takes a single prompt describing what you want. The response carries the generated body in suggestion , which you then se

Email is how most files still move between people: the signed contract, the PDF invoice, the logo embedded in a newsletter. If your app sends or processes mail, it has to handle attachments, and doing that against each provider means Gmail's attachment encoding, Microsoft Graph's, and raw MIME for IMAP. The Nylas Email API gives you one model for both directions: attach files to outbound messages with the same call you use to send, and pull files off inbound messages with a read-only Attachments API. This post covers both halves from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm checking a file came through. Two APIs: one to attach, one to read There's a split worth understanding up front. You add attachments through the Messages or Drafts API, as part of sending or saving a message, and you read existing attachments through the dedicated Attachments API. The Attachments API is read-only: it downloads bytes and returns metadata, but it never adds files. That division keeps the model simple, since attaching is part of composing a message and reading is a separate concern. The size of what you're attaching decides how you encode it on the way out. Small files ride inline in the JSON request, larger ones move to a multipart request, and very large files use a separate upload step. On the way in, every attachment, regardless of how it was sent, is fetched the same way: by its attachment_id together with the message_id it belongs to. Get those two ideas straight and the rest is mechanical. Attach a small file inline with Base64 For files that keep the whole request under 3 MB, the simplest path is the application/json schema. You pass each attachment in an attachments array with its content_type , filename , and the file bytes as a Base64-encoded content string. The 3 MB ceiling covers the entire HTTP request, not just the file, so it's the right path for

How I Stopped Burning Cash on Token Limits — A CTO's Field Notes Three months ago, I was staring at our monthly AI bill wondering where it all went wrong. We'd built what I thought was a pretty elegant LLM pipeline. Production-ready, observability wired up, the whole nine yards. Then the invoices started arriving, and I realized I had built a money furnace. Our token consumption was spiking 3x week over week, the 429s were everywhere, and our latency had become a meme inside the company. This is the post I wish I'd had six months ago. If you're a technical founder or a CTO running LLM workloads at scale, bookmark this. I'm going to walk you through the exact architecture decisions, the exact numbers, and the exact code that took us from "this bill is going to kill us" to "oh, this is actually manageable." The Real Problem Nobody Talks About Here's the dirty secret about running LLM-powered products: token limit errors aren't really about token limits. They're a symptom of a much deeper architectural problem. When your app throws "context length exceeded" at 2am, what it's really telling you is that you didn't think hard enough about prompt design, document chunking, model selection, and cost routing on day one. I learned this the hard way. My team was defaulting to GPT-4o for everything because, honestly, it works and the API is reliable. We were paying $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. For a startup processing millions of documents a month, that math is brutal. We were essentially funding OpenAI's next training run with our Series A. The wake-up call came when I ran the actual numbers. Our average request was burning through maybe 8K input tokens and producing 2K output tokens. At our volume, we were spending more on inference than on two senior engineers. That is not a sustainable burn rate for a 12-person company. The Architecture Decision That Changed Everything The first question I asked myself wasn't "which model is cheapest?

I’ve been shipping code since before most people even knew what Git was. I've seen entire architectures built around point-to-point API integrations that were beautiful for a quarter, and then became unmaintainable monoliths by the second year. If you spend any time in enterprise software development—especially anything touching customer data or HR pipelines—you run into integration hell. The modern AI agent promises to be this universal connective tissue, right? It sounds simple enough: give it access, and boom, productivity magic. But let’s be real about what that means under the hood. When an LLM is given a tool schema, how does it get data from five wildly different systems—Salesforce for contacts, Workday for employees, Zendesk for tickets, Greenhouse for candidates? The naive approach, and frankly, most teams still take it this way, is to build bespoke orchestration services. You create a microservice that accepts an input query (e.g., 'What did Jane do last month?') and then contains specialized logic: if the name format looks like a CRM record, call salesforce_api ; if it sounds HR-related, hit workday_endpoint , etc. This is debt acceleration disguised as architecture. You are not building an integration layer; you are building a brittle routing table that requires human intervention every time one of the underlying APIs changes its schema or rate limit structure. It’s glue code for glue code's sake, and it has a massive maintenance overhead. The core problem is that most agents see data sources as functional silos , not integrated components of a single operational truth. Your CRM thinks about accounts; your HRIS thinks about job codes; your ATS tracks keywords. They all speak different dialects of 'person' or 'business unit.' When an agent needs to know, say, which employees (HRIS) are currently candidates in the pipeline (ATS) who also have a linked account record (CRM), you hit a wall. The solution isn't more specialized microservices. The solution is s

There's a headline pattern that feels like sharp marketing writing but quietly costs conversions. "You code. We cloud." It's clever. The parallel structure is tight. It names a clear division of labor. But it describes the service delivery model , not the developer outcome — and those are different things to someone scanning a landing page in five seconds. The audit fastapicloud.com is a managed hosting product built specifically for FastAPI developers. The hero H1 is: "You code. We cloud." On the surface this reads as clean, confident B2B positioning. In practice, it names the mechanism: You = who does the coding We cloud = who handles the infrastructure What's missing is the output. What does the developer actually walk away with? The gap (mechanism-first H1): The headline describes the service model without anchoring it in the developer outcome. The visitor has to make a three-step inference: "they handle the cloud" → "that means I don't do ops" → "so my app gets to production without a week of DevOps work." In five seconds of scrolling, most won't finish that chain. The headline earns a nod of recognition. It doesn't earn the scroll. The fix One line changes the frame completely. Before: "You code. We cloud." After: "Your FastAPI app is live in production — zero config rabbit holes, zero deploy-day surprises." The rewrite keeps the same promise — they handle the infrastructure — but anchors it in the developer's world. The outcome (app in production) is first. The pain points ("config rabbit holes," "deploy-day surprises") are the exact things a FastAPI developer has already lived through. "Zero config rabbit holes" names the experience of spinning up a production server for the first time. "Zero deploy-day surprises" names the dread: the Sunday night broken deploy that wasn't caught in staging. Any backend developer who reads that line knows exactly what it's describing. The mechanism (managed cloud, they handle ops) is still implied. But the headline earns the

I used Postman for years. It was the first thing I installed on every new laptop, the default answer...

Sometimes an email shouldn't go out the instant your code runs. A human needs to review it first, or the user wants to compose now and hit send later, or an AI agent proposes a reply that a person approves before it ships. The mechanism for all three is the same: a draft. Build that against providers directly and you're juggling Gmail's draft resource, Microsoft Graph's, and an IMAP APPEND to the Drafts folder, each with its own shape and quirks. The Nylas Email API collapses that into one draft resource. You create a draft on the user's account, it lands in their real Drafts folder, and you send it later with a single request, the same way across Gmail, Microsoft 365, Yahoo, iCloud, IMAP, and Exchange. This post walks the full draft lifecycle from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for. One draft resource across every provider A draft in the Nylas model is a real object in the user's mailbox, not a staging area on the side. When you create one, it saves to the user's own Drafts folder on their provider, so it shows up in their normal mail client exactly like a draft they started themselves. That's the property that makes drafts useful for review workflows: a person can open the mailbox and see the pending message before it sends. Because drafts are real provider objects, edits flow both ways. A draft you create through the API appears in the user's mail client within the provider's sync window, and a change the user makes there alters the same draft you'd fetch back through the API. The operations split across two paths: create and list live on /v3/grants/{grant_id}/drafts , while fetch, update, send, and delete act on a specific draft at /v3/grants/{grant_id}/drafts/{draft_id} . They behave the same across all six providers, so you write the integration once. Create a draft Creating a draft is a POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/drafts with the same message

An AI agent that can email but can't hold a calendar slot is only half useful. The moment a conversation turns into "let's meet Thursday at 2," the agent needs a real calendar — one that sends invitations people accept in Google Calendar or Outlook, receives invites at its own address, and RSVPs back so the organizer sees a real response next to everyone else's. Bolting a scheduling library onto a shared mailbox doesn't get you there; the agent needs a calendar identity of its own. An Agent Account ships with exactly that. Every account gets a primary calendar that hosts events, accepts invitations over standard iCalendar, and RSVPs with yes, no, or maybe. To a participant, the agent is just another attendee on the invite. This post walks through using that calendar from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the Nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for. The calendar an Agent Account comes with When Nylas provisions an Agent Account, it creates a primary calendar that belongs to the account. You reach it through the same Calendars and Events endpoints at /v3/grants/{grant_id}/... that any other grant uses, so calendar code you've written for a connected Google or Microsoft account works here unchanged. Each account gets: A primary calendar , provisioned automatically. It can't be deleted while other calendars exist on the account. Additional calendars , up to your plan's cap, for separating concerns — a sales-calls calendar and an internal one on the same agent. Free/busy queries , so the agent can check its own availability before proposing a time. Event webhooks — event.created , event.updated , and event.deleted fire on every change, whether it came from the agent or from someone responding to an invitation. List the calendars from the terminal with nylas calendar list , or over the API with GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/calendars . Both return the primary calendar plus any you've added. List what'

You give your AI agent a real mailbox, it sends its first batch of email, and half of it lands in spam. The agent did nothing wrong. The domain did — it's new, it has no sending history, and mailbox providers treat an unknown domain that suddenly sends volume the same way they treat a spammer. Deliverability is the work of proving the mail is really yours, sending at a pace providers trust, and watching the signals that say whether recipients want it. An Agent Account sends from a domain you own, so its inbox placement is yours to manage like any other mail from your company. This post is a practical playbook for getting and keeping an agent in the inbox, from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the Nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm wiring up monitoring. The deliverability checklist Five things decide whether an Agent Account reaches the inbox, and you can act on all of them before sending at volume. Work them in order — authentication first, because nothing else matters if recipient servers can't confirm the mail is yours, then pace and monitoring once mail is flowing. Authenticate the domain with DKIM and SPF as part of domain verification. Set up DMARC so providers know how to treat mail that fails authentication. Warm up a new domain before sending at volume, over roughly four weeks. Monitor bounces and complaints through the deliverability webhooks. Stay under the bounce and complaint thresholds that pause sending. The rest of this post covers each one with the commands and request bodies to wire it up. Authenticate with DKIM and SPF Authentication is the foundation, and for an Agent Account it rides on two records you already publish during domain setup. DKIM adds a cryptographic signature proving the message wasn't altered and really came from your domain; SPF authorizes the sending infrastructure to send on your behalf. Both are verified before a custom domain can host a

An AI agent with its own mailbox reacts to whatever lands in it. That's the point, until a spam blast, a mailer-daemon loop, or an auto-reply triggers the agent into answering noise. The same goes the other way: an agent composing mail on its own can address the wrong person, leak to a test domain that slipped into production, or email a competitor because nobody told it not to. A human would catch these. An agent needs guardrails encoded somewhere it can't skip. Agent Accounts ship three admin resources for exactly this: Policies bundle limits and spam settings, Rules match mail on the way in or out and run actions like block or assign_to_folder , and Lists are reusable collections of domains or addresses that rules reference. This post covers all three from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the Nylas CLI for inspecting and managing policies and rules from the terminal. Lists, workspaces, and the rule-evaluations audit log are API-only for now. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for. How Policies, Rules, and Lists fit together The three resources form a chain, and a workspace ties it to your accounts. A List holds values like domains or addresses. A Rule references lists through the in_list operator and describes conditions and actions. A Policy bundles limits and spam settings. A workspace carries one policy_id plus an array of rule_ids , and every Agent Account in that workspace inherits both. What matters here: you don't attach a policy or rule to an individual grant. You set policy_id and rule_ids on a workspace , and they apply to every account in it. Each application has a default workspace that holds any account you haven't placed elsewhere, so configuring that one workspace covers all your unassigned accounts at once. All three resources are application-scoped — they carry no grant ID in the path, and your API key identifies the application. Resource What it owns How it's referenced List A typed collection of

An AI agent sends an email, a reply lands three hours later, and the agent has to answer two questions before it can do anything useful: which conversation is this, and what did I last say? Get the first one wrong and the agent's reply shows up in the recipient's inbox as a brand-new message instead of slotting into the existing thread. To the person on the other end, that looks broken — like the agent forgot the conversation it started. Threading is the part of agent email that's easy to get almost right and quietly wrong. The fix lives in a few email headers most developers never touch, and in the Threads API that groups messages into conversations for you. This post walks through both, from two angles: the HTTP API for your backend, and the Nylas CLI for the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm testing a reply loop. The three headers that make threading work Threading runs on three email headers, not on subject lines. Every message carries a Message-ID — a globally unique identifier the sending server stamps on it. When someone replies, their mail client adds In-Reply-To (the Message-ID of the message being answered) and References (the full chain of Message-ID values, oldest to newest). Those two headers are how every mail client decides which messages belong together. Here's what the chain looks like across one exchange. The agent's first message gets a Message-ID ; the reply points back at it; the agent's follow-up references both: # The agent's outbound message Message-ID : <abc123@agents.yourcompany.com> Subject : Following up on your demo request # The recipient's reply Message-ID: <def456@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <abc123@agents.yourcompany.com> References: <abc123@agents.yourcompany.com> Subject: Re: Following up on your demo request # The agent's follow-up Message-ID: <ghi789@agents.yourcompany.com> In-Reply-To: <def456@gmail.com> References: <abc123@agents.yourcompany.com> <def456@gmail.com> The Ref