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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87F61A0964 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 13:34:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 65569146D2 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 13:34:10 +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 13:34:08 +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 ADA164778F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 9 Nov 2023 13:34:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <b63e7939-23d7-46f8-a9e5-c6d53a0f1789@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 13:34:07 +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> <79543f3b-51ad-48a2-8a04-b5404ba1ed28@proxmox.com> <131553887.2107.1699532181548@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> Cc: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <131553887.2107.1699532181548@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 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] 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 12:34:40 -0000 On 11/9/23 13:16, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >> 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... I see. What would be your suggestion? To not have such a plugin at all? I implemented this because it was explicitly mentioned by Thomas in the tracking bugzilla issue for an overhauled notification system [1]. Not having to configure Postfix if one wants to use an external SMTP relay seems to be add quite a lot of value to the user (e.g. judging from [2] and [3]) As a compromise, maybe we could just add a note to the docs that discusses the reliability aspects of 'sendmail' vs 'smtp' endpoints? [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4156 [2] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2965 [3] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/get-postfix-to-send-notifications-email-externally.59940/ -- - Lukas