From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FAB31FF556 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3833E2E32; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:54 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:51 +0200 Message-Id: <D0MBQXAN2DA9.1KA9HAUUMBRF@proxmox.com> From: "Gabriel Goller" <g.goller@proxmox.com> To: "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-91-g65332c233880-dirty References: <20240412100631.94218-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <D0I75C8MC22A.3VW3W55OFFXGY@proxmox.com> <f73e1a10-9e15-4f28-b1b5-7da2d04a5028@proxmox.com> <b854bafd-2d7b-4207-977d-bd44e4561d1e@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b854bafd-2d7b-4207-977d-bd44e4561d1e@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.085 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 00/33] integrate notification system 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> Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 10:22 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On second thought: I think I want to use the 'old system' by default for anything > that might be automated in some fashion (e.g. calling proxmox-backup-manager from a script, or > creating a datastore via the API). Ooh, this is actually a good point, this could then be changed on a future (prob. major) update! Disregard my comment earlier then :) > Because a `proxmox-backup-manager datastore create ... --notify gc=never` > (or an equivalent API call) would suddenly behave differently if we default to > the notification system (--notify is ignored then). > In the web UI it seems fine to automatically opt-in (we don't offer the option to change > notification settings there anyway), but for the CLI/API I'm not sure > if this is a good idea. > > We *could* have some magic approach which opts into the notification system iff > - mailto-user is *not* set (we defaulted to sending to root@pam then) > - notify is also *not* set > > But I'm not sure if I'm a fan of that - the 'auto' mode for backup jobs on PVE created > enough confusion already, so I'd rather be more explicit here - even if that > means that we have an opt-in approach until the next major release. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel 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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B19979A1 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 88E452E67 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:52 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:52 +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 CD08041FC8 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:51 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:26:51 +0200 Message-ID: <D0MBQXAN2DA9.1KA9HAUUMBRF@proxmox.com> From: "Gabriel Goller" <g.goller@proxmox.com> To: "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0-91-g65332c233880-dirty References: <20240412100631.94218-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <D0I75C8MC22A.3VW3W55OFFXGY@proxmox.com> <f73e1a10-9e15-4f28-b1b5-7da2d04a5028@proxmox.com> <b854bafd-2d7b-4207-977d-bd44e4561d1e@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b854bafd-2d7b-4207-977d-bd44e4561d1e@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.085 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 00/33] integrate notification system 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, 17 Apr 2024 10:26:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20240417102651.EpmfvgDem_25WZ8YjIZZDM6vhho17YueoxDu2yMvBp8@z> On Wed Apr 17, 2024 at 10:22 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On second thought: I think I want to use the 'old system' by default for = anything > that might be automated in some fashion (e.g. calling proxmox-backup-mana= ger from a script, or > creating a datastore via the API). Ooh, this is actually a good point, this could then be changed on a future (prob. major) update! Disregard my comment earlier then :) > Because a `proxmox-backup-manager datastore create ... --notify gc=3Dneve= r`=20 > (or an equivalent API call) would suddenly behave differently if we defau= lt to > the notification system (--notify is ignored then). > In the web UI it seems fine to automatically opt-in (we don't offer the o= ption to change > notification settings there anyway), but for the CLI/API I'm not sure > if this is a good idea. > > We *could* have some magic approach which opts into the notification syst= em iff > - mailto-user is *not* set (we defaulted to sending to root@pam then) > - notify is also *not* set > > But I'm not sure if I'm a fan of that - the 'auto' mode for backup jobs o= n PVE created > enough confusion already, so I'd rather be more explicit here - even if t= hat > means that we have an opt-in approach until the next major release.