On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:45:16AM +0100, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:36:00PM +0000, martin f krafft wrote: > > > tags 408037 wontfix > > > thanks
> > > Steve, I am not happy with filtering this message on the basis that > > > is *is* an uncorrectable sector and thus a problem that should get > > > fixed. > > No, smartd already sends its own emails about this by default. If logcheck > > is going to insist on a policy of including *duplicate* notices in its own > > output, then I don't think I have any use for logcheck. > > It's also not a problem that can "get fixed", short of replacing the > > hardware. > AIUI you're not forced to send mails with smartd No, you're not, but it's the default. If I'm getting the mails, why should logcheck repeat the information? If I override the default, why should logcheck send me stuff I've asked not to get mails about? > Obviously this has the drawback to warn you at logcheck rate rather > than smartd (which performs checks more often). But I must say I agree > with Martin here, by default logcheck should not assume that you already > read smartd errors through another channel, that should be a per 'admin' > setting (IMHO). Obviously it is a per-'admin' setting; the question is about which is a reasonable default. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
