From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E88D1FF141 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2026 01:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8544236F6F; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 01:49:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?q?Fabian=20Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Subject: applied: [PATCH pmg-docs 1/2] faq: make EOL description more explicit Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 01:49:02 +0200 Message-ID: <178035773964.1498564.16884565381919750609.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260521090432.373798-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20260521090432.373798-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1780357716326 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) Message-ID-Hash: 2C7EGPT4V5ZR5OI4GWWDKFBSCBR26HKM X-Message-ID-Hash: 2C7EGPT4V5ZR5OI4GWWDKFBSCBR26HKM X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 21 May 2026 11:04:24 +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > instead of just "supported", which has been misinterpreted in the past, make > the regular security team to LTS part more explicit. > > Applied, thanks! [1/2] faq: make EOL description more explicit commit: 7ef6e0fe6351b2d8a0381c370056d2f2ae746db4 [2/2] faq: eol: fix Bookworm EOL date commit: 6366adb27b44c753a82e513482c4b9254e27b92f