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 E48711FF13F for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8DCF59411; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:07:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:06:57 +0200 From: Arthur Bied-Charreton To: Lukas Wagner Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-mail-forward 4/5] forward mails on PDM installations as well Message-ID: References: <20260409132721.272178-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260409132721.272178-5-l.wagner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260409132721.272178-5-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1775747149422 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.779 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: BEW3I5ETBFOF2UGSFXR3JZ4BGJHTCOOW X-Message-ID-Hash: BEW3I5ETBFOF2UGSFXR3JZ4BGJHTCOOW 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 03:27:20PM +0200, Lukas Wagner wrote: > Use the same approach as for PBS installations, namely by storing the > notification in a spool directory which is then later handled by a > worker in the PDM proxy process. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wagner [...] Looks good to me (obviously not tested end-to-end since we do not yet have notifications in PDM) Reviewed-by: Arthur Bied-Charreton