From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B419965CDD
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Nov 2020 09:59:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A21B5158CA
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Nov 2020 09:59:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 98FD7158BE
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Nov 2020 09:59:01 +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 6ADAD46022
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  5 Nov 2020 09:59:01 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20201104131026.4017010-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <20201104131026.4017010-3-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <6671a9c8-9cbd-3ce0-145f-d8cb5edde6ce@proxmox.com>
 <1604562134.h980kyx4bv.astroid@nora.none>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <45459626-a573-ab21-2278-bc336b23b848@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:58:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/83.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1604562134.h980kyx4bv.astroid@nora.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.117 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 3/4] api: refactor remote
 client and add remote scan
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 08:59:32 -0000

On 05.11.20 08:43, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> On November 4, 2020 6:12 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> we probably also do not want to bubble up the 401 error our server get=
s
>> from the remote server, as I then get logged out by the gui which thin=
ks
>> the 401 are from our server...
>=20
> that's a good gotcha. should we just map errors to a generic 400=20
> prefixed with 'scanning remote '{}' failed' ?

or even a 5xx, as the server run into this error? but no hard feelings he=
re.