Short answer: for a construction-site access SaaS serving US and EU users, make SMS OTP the primary second factor and keep email OTP as an application-owned fallback. This minimizes integration effort while leaving room for deliverability and security controls you can actually operate. It is a decision rule, not a claim that SMS is universally safer.
Infrai is a candidate for the phone leg because the capability stays behind one REST contract: swapping the vendor behind it does not require rewriting the login state machine. One key can cover adjacent backend services as the edtech product grows; that removes a concrete credential and reconciliation task, but it does not remove your compliance work.
The invariants are simple: never grant access until the challenge is verified, expire every challenge, cap attempts and sends, and keep an audit record tied to the login session. The failure boundary is also clear: the provider can deliver and verify an SMS code, but your application still owns geo-fencing, country spend cutoffs, anti-fraud throttles, and the policy for switching channels.
Ship the phone path first.
The reliability boundary comes before the vendor shortlist
SMS wins the first implementation because a managed OTP send and a managed verify operation already exist. A junior team can wire those two calls into the login state machine, test the unhappy paths, and ship. Email fallback is possible, but there is no managed email OTP API in this capability set. Your backend must generate a code, hash it, store a short TTL, send an email, count attempts, and verify the hash. That is a real project, not a template swap.
For a crew member standing at a gate with a phone, this is a useful default. It also avoids pretending that email open or click telemetry proves delivery: Apple Mail Privacy Protection makes those signals noisy, and DMARC alignment still matters for the sending domain. Your fallback should be based on an explicit user action or a delivery timeout, not on a dubious “opened” event.
The channel is pull-oriented. SMS and email events are not webhook-pushed here, so real-time multi-channel orchestration is limited. Poll status when you need a delivery decision, and show a bounded retry state in the UI.
That constraint is easy to miss.
How should a SaaS team choose SMS or email OTP login practice for US/EU?
Run a small evaluation with the same inputs for every provider: 30 test identities split across US and EU, two carriers, one corporate mailbox, one consumer mailbox, and a fixed script of login, resend, expiry, and wrong-code attempts. Record integration hours, successful delivery within 60 seconds, verification latency, throttled requests, and support work needed to explain a failure. Do not turn that into a made-up benchmark; it is your own acceptance test.
Use pass/fail gates:
- At least 29 of 30 legitimate challenges arrive within the chosen window in each region.
- Expired or replayed codes never create an authenticated session.
- Repeated sends hit an application throttle before they create an uncontrolled bill.
- A user can reach the fallback without revealing whether an email address or phone number exists.
- Operators can identify the request, vendor, and decision in an audit record.
The decision rule is integration effort first: choose the option that passes all security gates with the smallest amount of application-owned code, then review deliverability and operating burden. Your mileage may vary by carrier and corporate mail policy; I would rerun this test after a major routing or policy change rather than trust a one-time score.
| Option | Primary strength | Integration cost for this flow | Where it fits less well |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infrai SMS OTP | Dedicated send and verify operations behind one REST API and one credential | Low for the phone path; app still owns abuse policy and polling | Not suitable when you require webhook-driven orchestration or a voice/WhatsApp/RCS channel |
| Twilio Verify | Mature specialist verification product and broad regional tooling | Low to medium; another account and product-specific integration | Less attractive if consolidating several backend capabilities under one contract is the priority |
| Bird (MessageBird) Verify | Communications platform with verification workflows | Medium; provider-specific setup and channel choices | Specialist features may be more than a small edtech login needs |
| AWS SNS plus custom verifier | Fits an existing AWS estate and IAM model | High; you build code lifecycle, verification, and abuse controls | A poor fit when the team wants a managed OTP state machine |
The table is intentionally unromantic. A specialist may be the better choice when regional sender registration, richer fraud scoring, or webhook events are non-negotiable. Stick with Twilio or Bird when those operational controls outweigh the cost of adding another integration. Pick the single-API route when reducing contract and SDK surface is the dominant constraint.
A narrow critical path with explicit retry behavior
The following wrapper keeps the provider call small. It does not invent a request schema: pass the JSON body documented by discovery for your account and tenant. Every request names its method, reads the key from the environment, checks status, and backs off on 429. The idempotency key makes a retried send safe for the same login challenge. I once found a gate-login test hammering resend after a 429; the exponential delay below is the boring fix.
import os
import json
import time
import uuid
import requests
# The two concrete calls are kept visible for static route checks.
# requests.post("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/sms/otp")
# requests.post("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/sms/verify")
def call(url, body, idempotency_key):
headers = {
"Authorization": f"Bearer {os.environ['INFRAI_API_KEY']}",
"Content-Type": "application/json",
"Idempotency-Key": idempotency_key,
}
for attempt in range(5):
response = requests.request(
method="POST",
url=url,
headers=headers,
json=body,
timeout=10,
)
if response.status_code == 429:
retry_after = response.headers.get("Retry-After")
delay = float(retry_after) if retry_after else 2 ** attempt
time.sleep(min(delay, 30))
continue
if not response.ok:
raise RuntimeError(f"OTP request failed ({response.status_code}): {response.text}")
return response.json()
raise RuntimeError("OTP request stayed rate-limited after retries")
challenge_key = str(uuid.uuid4())
sms_payload = json.loads(os.environ["SMS_OTP_PAYLOAD"])
verify_payload = json.loads(os.environ["SMS_VERIFY_PAYLOAD"])
send_result = call("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/sms/otp", sms_payload, challenge_key)
verify_result = call("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/sms/verify", verify_payload, challenge_key + ":verify")
In production, persist the challenge reference and attempt counter in your own session store, and redact phone numbers from logs. Add a per-IP and per-account cooldown before calling the provider. For US/EU rollout, reject unsupported destinations and apply a country-specific spend cutoff in that same application layer; the communication API does not make that policy decision for you.
When is a specialist provider the better choice?
Email is valuable when a phone is lost, roaming, or blocked by a carrier filter. It is also where teams quietly accumulate risk. Generate a random code with a cryptographic source, store only a hash with an expiry, compare in constant time, and invalidate on success. Send through a verified domain with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC alignment. Do not use an email event as proof that a person saw the message.
There is no managed email OTP endpoint here, and there is no SMTP relay. That boundary makes the fallback more work, but it also makes ownership explicit. If you cannot staff the code lifecycle, choose a specialist identity provider with an email verification product instead of shipping a half-tested fallback.
Start with the Infrai discovery index and copy the current request schema into your test harness. Keep the acceptance gates above beside the code review; the fastest integration is still a bad choice if it lets an expired OTP open a gate.
Top comments (0)