Am 05. Jun, 2001 schwäzte Dave Sherohman so: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 07:58:50AM -0500, hanasaki wrote: > > > I have added the following else statement to the script so there is > > always a report. I would appreciate it if the utility's owner would > > consider adding this to his/her next revision and giving a small credit > > if they do. >
> I would not appreciate it. I suppose adding an option (so long as the > current behaviour remains the default) would be OK, but I'm of the opinion That's the way I set it up when I changed logcheck. > that, if there's nothing to report, I don't want to be bothered with null > mail. The absence of a problem report is itself confirmation that there > is no problem. (Same principle: Create an empty directory, cd into it, Not necessarily. It could also be evidence that someone's turned off logcheck, which is mostly what this thread was concetrating on :). I need to add a mail handler that will expect the mail from logcheck and inform me if it doesn't come in. In priciple I want to only get the bad news, but I want to make sure something is checking that the local machine is still working properly ( well, it's still not a guarantee it hasn't been tampered with, but it's one more level they have to overcome ). A mail filter, snmp query or network monitoring module could be used to eat the empty reports, but let me know if they didn't get one they expected. ciao, der.hans -- # [EMAIL PROTECTED] home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com # I'm not anti-social, I'm pro-individual. - der.hans