From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <l.wagner@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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A784A085F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:23:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2DED91339E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:23:49 +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 11:23:48 +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 5706647665 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:23:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <79543f3b-51ad-48a2-8a04-b5404ba1ed28@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 11:23:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-AT, en-US To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20231108154005.895814-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <755369602.1858.1699458751179@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <755369602.1858.1699458751179@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.014 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 10:23:49 -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'. The same thing applies for gotify/webhook endpoints - if the network or Gotify server is down, a notification cannot be sent. A queuing/retry mechanism could be added at some point, but this would require some bigger changes, as the notification system is completely stateless right now. -- - Lukas