GitLab

extend expiration of temp box

See merge request !36

To address #10, let's just extend the lifetime of the temp box. I don't
have a better idea. 4h should be enough..?

prevent list creation for forbidden aliases

See merge request !33

additionally check that the authenticated user of the token
is a valid email address to prevent tokens from being used
after a user was deleted.

add a first, even more basic version for gitlab-ci

See merge request !34

sync welcome email smtp/imap recommendation with doku

See merge request !32

schleuder lists must be unique amongst their email

See merge request !31

prevents the api from creating lists with invalid names

See merge request !30

use the same xpath as gitlab - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/45a450aa253dcbda797e9dedcf1099f54763c2ec/lib/gitlab/auth/saml/auth_hash.rb#L31

idp reports back if user has 2fa

See merge request !28

the idp returns a different authncontext depending on the user having
2fa enabled. by default it returns

    urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password

with 2fa

    urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordWith2FA

there seems to be no agreed upon standard what to return and also
no sensible default option.

first iteration of allowing users to create resources

See merge request !26

add a route for domainaliases

See merge request !27

also allow users to access the delete endpoint

typo

See merge request !25

Resources

See merge request !15

ruby complains about template encoding, so lets set it

See merge request !24

fix distribution of new mailboxes

See merge request !23

empirically verified that this evens out a *lot* faster than what
we had before. The old formula didn't make much sense. Given
the current load is:

    a: 10, b: 20, c: 20

the old chance of getting picked was:

    a: 1-(1/5),  b: 1-(2/5),  c: 1-(2/5)

ie.

    a: 0.8, b: 0.6, c: 0.6

normalized (so they sum up to 1.0):

    a: 0.4, b: 0.3, c: 0.3

In other words "a" was less likely as "b || c", which is clearly not
good... The 1-(percentage) does not make much sense, since the resulting sum
does not add up to 1.

The new distribution is to use the asymptotic function (1/percentage)**2
as the relative likelihood.

In the above example it would be:

    a: 25, b: 6.25, c: 6.25

normalized:

    a: 0.67, b: 0.17, c: 0.17

which converges much faster!