From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B55AC028A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:03:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DE02328B7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:03:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:03:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BC6C649045
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:03:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d6f64e9b0c0c990d26b0a64d59442d31e55734d9.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development
 discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:03:06 +0100
In-Reply-To: <bccb7187-575d-40ce-8b47-07f2511031eb@proxmox.com>
References: <20240109142356.171494-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <20240109142356.171494-2-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <bccb7187-575d-40ce-8b47-07f2511031eb@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.058 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
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 2/3] pvesubscription: update
 set-offline-key description
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 11:03:07 -0000

On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 10:41 +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 09/01/2024 um 15:23 schrieb Alexander Zeidler:
> > and point users to proxmox-offline-mirror-helper
>=20
> the change is fine, but having any background/reason/why here could be
> still nice,
Thanks! Since a customer was used to pvesubscription, he thought he had
to use it for POM as well (even when marked as internal only). He was
apparently not aware of proxmox-offline-mirror-helper.