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 D29201FF138 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:01:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E99C317189; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <16fb3b78-3c77-4567-a09d-f4106c372533@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:01:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox 1/1] sendmail: add additional header map To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260615092015.101174-1-n.frey@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Nicolas Frey In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1781532046083 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.760 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: XGA3LCDQBFLD4XLCYKK55S5OSAQF7N6N X-Message-ID-Hash: XGA3LCDQBFLD4XLCYKK55S5OSAQF7N6N X-MailFrom: n.frey@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 VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 6/15/26 3:20 PM, Shannon Sterz wrote: > On Mon Jun 15, 2026 at 11:20 AM CEST, Nicolas Frey wrote: >> with corresponding methods to add them. >> > > generally i like the idea of allowing callers to specify additional > headers, but i wonder if this is a bit too lenient. usually, we try to > handle all encoding and formatting for the caller here, so we can deal > with being in compliance with all rfcs and mail related conventions here > instead of all call-sites. > Yeah I think it would be best to restrict in such a way that the caller does not really care about encoding/formatting and it's all done on the proxmox-sendmail site. Perhaps I should have sent it as an RFC, because I was very unsure how lax we wanna be here/who needs to deal with encoding/formatting the headers. > also this would allow setting headers that are set by proxmox-sendmail > anyway twice. that's probably not ideal either. I did have a draft where it just removes those already set somewhere else, but that felt a bit clunky, so also not ideal > > so imo, we should either: > > * expose at least the formatting helpers here publically so callers can > use them. > * allow only a limitted set of headers, maybe we an enum. we can then > handle formatting for the caller be seeing which enum type was > provided > > what do you think? > My initial goal was to make it so adding additional headers would not need another crate bump in the future. Regardless of that, I think a limited set of headers could work pretty well. I'll try the enum approach and send a V2 if it looks good, thanks! --- >8 snip 8< ---