From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AC0A1FF15F for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:03:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 294BC152D5; Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:03:06 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:02:33 +0100 Message-Id: From: "Shannon Sterz" To: "Lukas Wagner" , "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2-0-ge037c095a049-dirty References: <20241129105321.143877-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <47c2f30e-1676-4acf-a55e-ba2b55660eb6@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <47c2f30e-1676-4acf-a55e-ba2b55660eb6@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.038 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 1/4] sendmail: add sendmail crate X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On Mon Dec 2, 2024 at 11:20 AM CET, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Gave these changes a quick test in Proxmox Backup Server as well as in proxmox-mail-forward. > > Looks good! > > Tested-by: Lukas Wagner > Reviewed-by: Lukas Wagner > > (the latter iff the minor issues I mentioned are addressed) > thanks for the review! addressed some of your comments in-line and will send a v2 with the rest. -->8 snip 8<-- > > + > > + /// Adds a recipient to the mail with a name. > > + /// > > + /// Notes: > > + /// > > + /// - If the name contains UTF-8 characters it will be encoded. Then the possibly encoded name > > + /// and non-encoded email address will be passed to the `To:` header in this format: > > + /// `{encoded_name} <{email}>` > > + /// - If multiple receivers are specified, they will be masked so as not to disclose them to > > Thinking about the main usecase of this new crate, which is to provide the implementation > to send notification mails from PVE and PBS, I think the masking part should be > configurable. > > In the most common case, a notification mail might go to the members of an infra team of > a organization, where the identities of other team members is not really sensitive information. > I'd actually go as far and say that the info "who else was notified" is actually quite valuable > and useful to have. > > Then again, I can see the benefits of masking, e.g. in the case of PBS datastore notifications, > which might go to non-admin users (e.g. when PBS is offered as a service a la Tuxis). > > I don't care that much whether this is opt-in or opt-out at the crate level, but at the > 'sendmail target' level I'd make this configurable and opt-in (gut feeling and to not > change the current behavior, I'd be happy to be convinced for another way :) ) > > What are your thoughts about this? making this configurable sounds reasonable to me. i'd tend towards making the masking opt-out, though. at least on a crate level. my use-case for this crate is to send mails to all participants of a training, so there disclosing the mail addresses of other participants could be really bad (even legally actionable, afaict). i can see the value of this information in a notification scenario. however, i think the implications of forgetting to disclose this in some scenarios is much less detrimental than doing so in scenarios where we don't want to disclose them. -->8 snip 8<-- > I think with added support for attachments and the other changes it might make sense > to start breaking the method into smaller sub-methods. Personally I found it a bit > hard to follow the way it is right now :) At very least I'd try to break this into format_header > and format_body, in the latter one could probably also break out the attachment part. > > What do you think? yep makes sense, this is starting to spaghettify so yeah, i'll break these out a bit. > Also, I think debian packaging should be added in this or a separate commit. will try to add this in a v2. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel