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 8FDFA1FF13F for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:03:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F31F9100; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:03:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:03:10 +0200 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Lukas Wagner Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-mail-forward 3/5] forward using PBS' notification worker Message-ID: References: <20260409132721.272178-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260409132721.272178-4-l.wagner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260409132721.272178-4-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1775746923332 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.781 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 Message-ID-Hash: FAOB5EW22RXHGKEQUZNUSVPEF4UM3G7R X-Message-ID-Hash: FAOB5EW22RXHGKEQUZNUSVPEF4UM3G7R X-MailFrom: a.bied-charreton@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 CC: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com, pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com 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 09, 2026 at 03:27:19PM +0200, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Instead of sending the notification ourselves, use the fact that we > already have a 'notification queue' handled by a dedicated worker task > in PBS. Up until now, it was only used for sending notifications from > the unprivileged proxy process, but nothing speaks against doing the > same for forwarded emails. > > At some point, we should also introduce this worker in PVE -- then we > can use the same approach here for PVE as well. When this is done, we > gain the following advantages: > > - we don't need to bump proxmox-mail-forward if there are changes in > proxmox-notify (as soon as PVE uses the same approach as well) > > - we can drop the notification context implementations from > proxmox_notify and move them to the actual product code, where they > belong yay! > > - proxmox-mail-forward becomes extremely simple and light-weight -- > the only thing from proxmox-notify is the serializable Notification > struct, which could be put into a separate crate or made available > via a feature flag. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner > --- [...] Tested these changes on both PVE and PBS, did not run into any issues. As mentioned in the cover letter, there is breakage when using an upgraded proxmox-mail-forward on a non-upgraded PBS instance (i.e. that does not yet have the /var/lib/proxmox-backup/notifications/queue directory). Tested-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton Reviewed-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton