From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@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 959EBA09D0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  9 Nov 2023 13:16:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7052614588
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  9 Nov 2023 13:16:23 +0100 (CET)
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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  9 Nov 2023 13:16:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3137447748
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  9 Nov 2023 13:16:22 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 13:16:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <131553887.2107.1699532181548@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <79543f3b-51ad-48a2-8a04-b5404ba1ed28@proxmox.com>
References: <20231108154005.895814-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
 <755369602.1858.1699458751179@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <79543f3b-51ad-48a2-8a04-b5404ba1ed28@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev54
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.375 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 many 00/11] notifications: add SMTP
 endpoint
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2023 12:16:53 -0000

> On 11/8/23 16:52, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> >> This patch series adds support for a new notification endpoint type,
> >> smtp. As the name suggests, this new endpoint allows PVE to talk
> >> to SMTP server directly, without using the system's MTA (postfix).
> > 
> > Isn't this totally unreliable? What if the server responds with a
> > temporary error code? (An MTA retries several times).
> 
> The notification system has no mechanism yet for queuing/retries,
> so yes, at the moment a SMTP endpoint would indeed be less reliable than 
> a 'sendmail' endpoint. I'm not sure though if I would call it
> 'totally unreliable'.

This kind of notification system is quite popular for (PHP) web-sites contact 
form. I have seen many over-simplified implementation overs the years,
and yes, it is totally unreliable.

That is why we always used an MTA to deliver mails...