From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <g.goller@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 37D29BB67 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:12:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2148E1A9AA for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:12:44 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:12:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B51A746C27 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:12:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9c21f47c-551e-9e1b-fea6-ab2a215b357b@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:12:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230821074010.17442-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <cbc413d3-6a3c-4cd8-b687-35573d2bcd3d@proxmox.com> <9adb5b07-fa2c-7543-1c28-7dcb9b664b4f@proxmox.com> <30ac83ba-bd66-423a-8d7d-d4aab4134035@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <30ac83ba-bd66-423a-8d7d-d4aab4134035@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.313 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.473 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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] close #3777: api: Add source information to backup logs 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: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:12:44 -0000 On 9/13/23 09:08, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 08/09/2023 um 16:01 schrieb Gabriel Goller: >> On 9/7/23 18:53, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Oh, and for quite a few users the IPv4 mapped as IPv6 notation looks odd, so dropping the >>> ::ffff: prefix might be worth it, but no hard feelings, we can always change that if there >>> are complaints.. >> Noticed that too, but IMO staying 'correct' is more important than making the output pretty. > How is a IPv4 mapped as IPv6 more correct than a IPv4, it's literally the same thing > in two different notations? You're right, they are the same thing, but I wanted to maintain consistency with how we currently get the ip address and don't make any unnecessary string operations. But, as I said, if you feel like this should be stripped, I'll go ahead and change it.