On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:06:20PM -0400, Adam wrote: > Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:54:05PM -0400, Adam wrote: > > > Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Suppose your cron jobs don't emit output, which any good job shouldn't > > > > do. > > > > > > Huh? If you want a task to run on a schedule, and then mail you the > > > results, > > > then cron is exactly what you want. Any "good job" does what its author > > > wants it to. If they want it to emit output, then having it be silent for > > > no reason does not make it a "good job". > > > > > > Adam > > > > The way I structure my jobs, no output is _ever_ mailed by the cron > > daemon. Instead, the job itself traps output and sends an appropriate > > email message, with an appropriate subject to the appropriate user. > > Good for you. But "what Damian likes to do" is not the definition of > "good".
It's my definition :) > Like I said, if someone wants output mailed from cron, then > making the job silent just because Damian thinks that's "good" is dumb. > > Adam Do whatever you like. I'm simply stating my preference and providing an alternative setup for people to consider. I don't find receiving 200+ messages a day from cron jobs running on the network with identical subject lines to be a particularly good setup. In this case, having cron mail me the results of the job is not "exactly what I want" as you seem to believe. If you can come up with a better scheme for managing emailed output from hundreds of jobs running on hundreds of machines, then please share. As it stands, you're merely trolling. -Damian
