KevinTheJedi
Thank you for the response here. While I'm still having some troubles, it has allowed me to get one step closer to debugging the issue.
An example of what I had been using was:
{
"alert": true,
"autorespond": true,
"source": "API",
"name": "Angry User",
"email": "api@supportsystem.com",
"phone": "3185558634X123",
"website": "test.com",
"subject": "Testing API",
"ip": "123.211.233.122",
"message": "data:text/html,MESSAGE <b>HERE</b>",
"attachments": [{"file.txt": "data:text/plain;charset=utf-8,content"}]
}
While placing the example you had provided, I had noticed that I was receiving some validation errors that I did not receive using the data I was sending.
This was strange to me since the validation field it was requesting was not included within my example. Yet, as long as I don't have attachments, it will sends without any hiccups while bypassing these validations.
After additional testing what I found was this:
The extension added to the email field seemingly bypasses validations based on the top level domain provided. For example, using "username@domain.tld" provides a 400 error due to validation which I could work with and am currently resolving. However, username@domain.org causes the server to hang up and never respond (but only with attachments), while username@domain.com bypasses much of the validation (with and without attachments).
Note: this only happens with the email field; not the website field.
This leads me to believe that the attachment themselves may not directly be the issue (I won't know for sure until I get though the validations correctly). Somehow the top level domain provided within the email is causing some bugs. Seemingly ".com" seems to be the magic input that lets things fall through the cracks.
I will continue to debug on my end, but hopefully this provides additional insight related to the errors that myself and CharlieH96 were having. This issue seems to be pretty obscure as I could not find any information regarding the same issue anywhere else on the web.
Please let me know if you find anything else or have seen a similar issue with the top level domain discussed here,
Thanks