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 CA66D1FF140 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:34:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A4186F4E6; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:34:33 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:34:29 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: ping: [PATCH proxmox{-backup,-mail-forward} 0/5] forward mails through notification worker; PDM compatibility From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Lukas Wagner" , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260409132721.272178-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260409132721.272178-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777019579020 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.054 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: YETG4LRU6GXVRZK4VWKEGB5RMRUGMQ7P X-Message-ID-Hash: YETG4LRU6GXVRZK4VWKEGB5RMRUGMQ7P X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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: On Thu Apr 9, 2026 at 3:27 PM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Forwarding through the worker has a couple of benefits: > - We don't need to bump proxmx-mail-forwarder for changes in proxmox-no= tify (at > least as soon as PVE uses a similar approach as well) > - any notification state (history, tokens) becomes easier to reason > about if there is only one process touching it > - we can move the Context trait implementations from proxmox_notify to = the > actual product code again > > Technically we'd need a versioned break between proxmox-backup and > proxmox-mail-forward, due to the 'mail-forwarder' feature that was not en= abled in PBS > before, as well as the changed spool directory. If proxmox-mail-forward i= s > updated without updating proxmox-backup, forwarding the mail would fail d= ue to > > - /var/lib/proxmox-backup/notifications/queue not existing > - proxmox-backup not being able to deserialize notifications of the 'Fo= rwarded Mail' kind > > I don't think there is a way around this breakage, but we *could* defuse = it by: > > - keep sending the old way (by directly calling into proxmox_notify) > - but still change PBS to enable the 'mail-forwarder' feature and use t= he new spool-dir path > - at some point in the future we switch proxmox-mail-forward to use the > queue-based/worker approach, making it less likely that someone still > holds back a proxmox-backup update, which would break forwarding > > I'll leave this decision to the PBS maintainers, just tell me which appro= ach is > preferrable, then I'll adapt the series if needed. > gentle ping for the PBS parts - not super important, but Arthur's XOAUTH2 series relies on the changed directory structure in /var/lib/proxmox-backup/notifications