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 8C7921FF140 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:38:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6C5E4134FA; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:38:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7c18fb73-e517-42a6-b5fe-15dbe4c2412f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:37:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup v2] acme: partially fix #6372: scale certificate renewal checks by lifetime To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Manuel Federanko , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260423134607.105229-2-m.federanko@proxmox.com> <1777019789.wslwp6i17e.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1777019789.wslwp6i17e.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777026988668 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.002 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 Message-ID-Hash: OAOGVI4DAWSFYCRAQS3HBQOHM7XSA7U7 X-Message-ID-Hash: OAOGVI4DAWSFYCRAQS3HBQOHM7XSA7U7 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 Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 24.04.26 um 10:35 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > seems like v1 of this got applied (with some follow-ups), would you mind > checking if rebasing the diff between v1 and v2 still makes sense? Argh, b4 should have pulled in the newer revision in any case, I'll recheck what was going on here.