On Friday 22 June 2007 21:59, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I've been using this patch for 2 years now. Or, this patch for a
> year and a not-as-good patch I made a year before that. We push out
> the revised periodic script using cfengine. But I hate overwriting
> OS files, and I believe that most people
On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Dennis Melentyev wrote:
While I haven't seen any problem with patch itself since it just
adding a _useful_ knob, I personaly managed to use procmail to filter
most of that SPAM. My solution is not as CPU friendly as patch but
2000 messages is not an ultimate load for
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:56:46PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
On 6/20/07, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I get a message every day saying "No output", how do I know when a
failure has occurred? This patch changes nothing about that
behavior. Getting no mes
Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> I think that topic is not about "how we can do it another way", but why
> this patch was not commited. This patch doesn't change current behavior,
> but allows operator to choose another behavior.
> Allowing more choices is always good thing, so I am for commiting th
While I haven't seen any problem with patch itself since it just
adding a _useful_ knob, I personaly managed to use procmail to filter
most of that SPAM. My solution is not as CPU friendly as patch but
2000 messages is not an ultimate load for modern comps.
+1 for adding the patch. Also, will not
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
> >>
> >> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It does
Kurt Buff wrote:
[...]
Perhaps a separate mailbox dedicated to this task, with a script
(grep?) that parses the emails in that mailbox daily looking for
expected messages, noting and deleting them, with unsent messages
noted via an email and messages with unexpected content forwarded as
well?
I
On Jun 20, 2007, at 21:43, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Kurt Buff wrote:
Indeed, which is why this patch might not be such a good idea. In
this
case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, which is
contrary to the general case.
You appear to be completely confus
On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
Would it help if "everything is all right"-mails would be easily
discerned from messages saying "there is a problem"?
Not for me. I would like to not receive mail when everything is
alright.
IMHO that way you could move the "everything is
On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Daniel Bond wrote:
I like Kurt's approach
Well the goal is to allow either approach to work. Kurt is arguing
against this patch because it doesn't work for him...
having a mailfilter/script-pipe which could
remove dynamic variables like timestamps etc, and ch
Hi!
[on a bikeshed:]
> >3. Actual errors *will* be reported, and *will be read* if I don't
> >have to delete thousands of non-errors.
>
> Perhaps a separate mailbox dedicated to this task, with a script
> (grep?) that parses the emails in that mailbox daily looking for
> expected messages, noting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I like Kurt's approach, having a mailfilter/script-pipe which could
remove dynamic variables like timestamps etc, and checksum it against
against a "empty" template to see if its deletable.
This also verifies that mail-delivery is working, and machine
This is a no brainer. The patch seems to retain the current behavior.
The desired behavior is on a knob. It doesn't run enough to worry about
the extra cycles to run the conditional. A superficial googling will
show that emitting messages when there's no exception is a human factors
boo-boo, t
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:56:46PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I get a message every day saying "No output", how do I know when a
> > failure has occurred? This patch changes nothing about that
> > behavior. Getting no message is equally usele
On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
Currently, if you get no message from that box, *something* is broken.
I am not capable as a human being of noticing the lack of one
message, when without this patch I would get more than 2,000 each day.
The more likely is that the OP starts d
On 6/20/07, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Kurt Buff wrote:
> On 6/20/07, Dan Rue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If it's too broken to complain, then the behavior is the same with or
>> without this patch.
>
> Indeed, which is why this patch might not be such a
On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Kurt Buff wrote:
On 6/20/07, Dan Rue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If it's too broken to complain, then the behavior is the same with or
without this patch.
Indeed, which is why this patch might not be such a good idea. In this
case, absence of evidence is indeed ev
On Jun 20, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Javier Henderson wrote:
So if it's quiet, is it because it's OK, or because it's too
broken to
complain?
If it's too broken to complain, then the behavior is the same with or
without this patch.
I'm just referring to the assertion that the Unix model is to be
On 6/20/07, Dan Rue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
> >>
> >> T
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:47:49 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Javier Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
> >>
> >> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It does
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:06 -0500, Dan Rue wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
>>
>> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It doesn't change current/
>> expected behavior but does allow those of us with ma
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 08:47:48PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
>
> This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It doesn't change current/
> expected behavior but does allow those of us with many, many systems
> to not get useless e-mail.
>
> It's
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/88486
This patch was supplied 2 years ago now. It doesn't change current/
expected behavior but does allow those of us with many, many systems
to not get useless e-mail.
It's not even my patch! I would simply like to see this done...
--
Jo Rh
24 matches
Mail list logo
