Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Hi list, i've made the following changes to my /etc/rc.conf for a small appliance system. fsck_y_enable="YES" root_rw_mount="NO" squid_enable="YES" sendmail_enable="NO" sendmail_pidfile="/var/run/sendmail.pid" sendmail_procname="/usr/sbin/sendmail" sendmail_flags="-L sm-mta -bd -q30m" sendmail_submit_enable="YES" tmpmfs="YES" tmpsize="4m" tmpmfs_flags="-S -M" varmfs="YES" varsize="16m" varmfs_flags="-S -M" populate_var="YES" i was under the assumption that populate_var would carry over vital data from the on-disk /var, but there seem to be a few exceptions. s100-mum# pkg_info pkg_info: no packages installed i assume i will just hack the corresponding script to copy over a bit of data, but maybe someone has better advice than that. of course i need to go back to full r/w mode to add packages but a false result from pkg_info is not too great. any tipps / experiences are highly welcome :) -- 'Sie brauchen sich um Ihre Zukunft keine Gedanken zu machen' ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: unionfs6-p19-20070504 and devfs on a very recent 6.2-STABLE
So at the end, maybe we are two how couldn´t use p19 diff right. My recent post about this patch and its no working state at th 8th of June in this mailling list. Dan Kurt Jaeger napsal(a): > Hi! > > >> I'm using unionfs on a recently (approx. 5 days ago) cvsup'ed >> 6.2-STABLE with the >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/unionfs/unionfs6-p19-20070504.diff >> >> patch and have a problem with devfs mounted over unionfs. >> > > Going back to the most recent stable without unionfs6-p19-20070504 > works. > > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: When inode change time changes?
Artem Kuchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use gtar (gtar because it has incremental > backups, and tar does not) You _can_ use BSD tar for incremental backups. I do that every day. When you do a level-0 backup, simply "touch" a flag file somewhere. Then when you do the level-1 backup, use the --newer-than option with that flag file, so only files that were modified after the level-0 backup get archived. The --newer-than option checks the ctime. If you want to look at the mtime only (i.e. ignoring renames, chmod, chown etc.), use --newer-mtime-than instead. Please refer to the tar(1) manpage for details. > I use inode change time in order to backup > all changed files. I have notices that some > files are always backed up even if they did not > change. For example all mysql database. > I checked their file change time and it is not > changed, howeever, inode change time changes > on every mysql restart. > > Maybe someone can englighten me when > inode change time changes? What must be done > with file to change it (except writing to it)? > I tried chmoding - it does not affect inode time. The mtime changes upon every data write to the file, the ctime additionally changes upon every change of the inode data (i.e. file meta data). This is documented in the stat(2) manpage: st_ctime Time when file status was last changed (inode data modification). Changed by the chmod(2), chown(2), link(2), mknod(2), rename(2), unlink(2), utimes(2) and write(2) system calls. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 not even my patch! I would simply like to see this done... I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when everything is OK? Dan ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 many, many systems >> to not get useless e-mail. >> >> It's not even my patch! I would simply like to see this done... > > I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when everything > is OK? So if it's quiet, is it because it's OK, or because it's too broken to complain? -jav ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: When inode change time changes?
Oliver Fromme wrote: Artem Kuchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I use gtar (gtar because it has incremental backups, and tar does not) You _can_ use BSD tar for incremental backups. I do that every day. Yes, but that's not real incremental backup because if you restore data you'll get a bunch of files that were deleted along the way. gtar stores full file list and actually deleted the deleted files when restoring. And i have excessively many of such created and deleted files and i need only current ones. So tar is of no use for me. Also, i use inode time because i only need files which really have been changed. For example, i you restore a file from a month ago it will have a date which is a month ago. Then that backup is destroyed but this file would not be backed up because the date is too much in the past. So, we loose the file. If i used inode change time the file will be backup in any case. However, some "stupid" programs like mysql or qmail seem to touch files so, for example, all mail message and databases are backed up every time. And this sucks. So, when backing up these files i need to use file modification time and it is suitable here, since these file are never managed by human, only by daemon and old file eather go away (like in email) or change its mod time (like in mysql). What is still do not understand is what time gtar uses for --newer option. Man page says: --newer dateOnly store files with creation time newer than date. This is simply not true. NOT creation time defenetly. It is either modification time or inode change time. Which one? -- Regards, Artem ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 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... > > > > I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when > > everything is OK? > > 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. Dan ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 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... >>> >>> I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when >>> everything is OK? >> >> 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 quiet when everything is OK. Maybe it's a personal preference, I guess. -jav ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 > >> > >> 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... > > > > I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when > > everything is OK? > > 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. 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. Perhaps the OP needs a better way of dealing with the notifications than simply turning them off. My $US0.02 Kurt ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 quiet when everything is OK. Maybe it's a personal preference, I guess. No difference. If every day you get dozens of messages saying "No output from 5 commands" then you'll never know that a problem occurred because the message is the same. And more than likely, you just delete the messages every morning without reading them anyway -- which is worse. So the net effect of this change is zero, except that you can disable getting useless messages and thus if you do get e-mail you know that a problem has been happened and you won't ignore it. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 evidence of absence, which is contrary to the general case. You appear to be completely confused about what this change does. All it does is TO ALLOW (not require) the OP to disable the spurious and empty output from successful cron jobs. 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 useless in the situation where no output was generated *AND* the result code is positive. The more likely is that the OP starts deleting the messages unread each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. Perhaps the OP needs a better way of dealing with the notifications than simply turning them off. How do you suggest dealing with 1200-1800 messages which simply say "no output" each day? The commands were successful, and the processes had no output. 1. In that load level I won't notice one missing, so absence of the e- mail is not useful. 2. In that load level I can't possibly read them all. So actual reports of failure will be overlooked. 3. Actual errors *will* be reported, and *will be read* if I don't have to delete thousands of non-errors. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 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 confused about what this change does. All it does is TO ALLOW (not require) the OP to disable the spurious and empty output from successful cron jobs. 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 useless in the situation where no output was generated *AND* the result code is positive. Currently, if you get no message from that box, *something* is broken. The more likely is that the OP starts deleting the messages unread each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. Failure of imagination. > Perhaps the OP needs a better way of dealing with the notifications > than simply turning them off. How do you suggest dealing with 1200-1800 messages which simply say "no output" each day? The commands were successful, and the processes had no output. 1. In that load level I won't notice one missing, so absence of the e- mail is not useful. 2. In that load level I can't possibly read them all. So actual reports of failure will be overlooked. 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 and deleting them, with unsent messages noted via an email and messages with unexpected content forwarded as well? Kurt ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 deleting the messages unread each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. Failure of imagination. No. Having done the work to verify that failures will be reported, I configure the mail system to only send me mail on errors. Better design. 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? This doesn't solve the "lack of a message" problem you mentioned above. It also requires a new system to be designed and configured, which could have failures of its own. This is more abstraction and zero gain for our environment. Any error should be read in our situation. A non-error does not need to be read. In any case, the primary consideration with this patch is that it allows either model to work. You can do it your way, and we can do it our way. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 useless in the situation > > where no output was generated *AND* the result code is positive. > > Currently, if you get no message from that box, *something* is broken. Daily Emails with no useful information in them will, by default, get ignored by most SAs. I happen to be one of those SAs, and this is how I have operated for 15+ years. Every SA co-worker I've had has run off the same mentality: "make noise if there's a problem. Silence means things are good." I think this is generally how UNIX operates as well; it gets messy when programmers don't do things like handle error conditions properly (fopen() failed? exit(0) and say nothing!), but programs like that are usually sniffed out and the programmer shunned. If that's not enough for you, let's use cronjobs as an example (and probably the best example). cron by default ONLY MAILS YOU when there's output on stdout/stderr. There's a reason you find 2>&1 >/dev/null in lots of cronjob entries: because people want silence if they don't care things might break. The inverse of that is when things get noisy, things are broken. cron *does not* mail you daily saying "Hey man, things are OK!" > > 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 and deleting them, with unsent messages > noted via an email and messages with unexpected content forwarded as > well? I think by "unsent" you mean "remaining" (that is, messages not deleted are obvious signs of a problem, thus spawning an Email saying "hey there's messages in this queue still, check it out"). I understand your POV, but I disagree with it. Maybe I'm biased because I work in a NOC, where if we received empty Emails that said nothing other than "No output", after 24 hours we'd be hunting down the responsible owner of the cronjob/script to strangle them. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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, therefore this is a bug fix or at least not a request for spurious feature. Even though the present incarnation appears to be (IMO) borked, least surprise doctrine and inertia suggests committing the patch and moving on. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
-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 is not dead. What also could be done is feed this information into a database, and show more information, ie: group portaudits on host like: www/apache2: (apache-2.0.55_3,apache-2.0.58) host1,host2,host3,host4,,[see all] For portaudit I use a small ruby-program w/Net::SSH which runs portaudit-threads on machines, and groups it like somewhat like above on a web-interface. I intend to publish this when it's more "production ready", and not so specific for my use. Sorry for going off-topic. - -DB. Jo Rhett wrote: > 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 deleting the messages unread >>> each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. >> >> Failure of imagination. > > No. Having done the work to verify that failures will be reported, I > configure the mail system to only send me mail on errors. Better design. > >> 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? > > This doesn't solve the "lack of a message" problem you mentioned above. > > It also requires a new system to be designed and configured, which could > have failures of its own. This is more abstraction and zero gain for > our environment. Any error should be read in our situation. A > non-error does not need to be read. > > In any case, the primary consideration with this patch is that it allows > either model to work. You can do it your way, and we can do it our way. > > --Jo Rhett > senior geek > > Silicon Valley Colocation > Support Phone: 408-400-0550 > > > > > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGeYyAUR3pKhqN0EoRAgbUAJ93Rq0FwoYRZfL2PnUGaDHwl8jbbgCfcc22 uUkANgaHrRsY9RQrDKLUbKk= =N5D4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 and deleting them, with unsent messages > noted via an email and messages with unexpected content forwarded as > well? Yes, that's what I have hoped for in the past as well. That script to analyse is not that easy to write, because there are many border cases. This script never materialized until now, and therefore, for the time being, I seriously hope this patch will be committed. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 171 310137213 years to go ! ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 checksum it against against a "empty" template to see if its deletable. This also verifies that mail-delivery is working, and machine is not dead. But thats where the logic fails. Show me a mailfilter that will observe the lack of a message? Nobody who is against this patch is making logical arguments... Yes, I agree in theory. If you have scripts that output a lot of data every time and you need to look for anomolies, then a mailfilter/ pipe approach makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean that this patch is a bad idea. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 all right" messages into a separate mailbox which would serve as a coarse check (there'd be about the same amount of new messages in it every day), while the "there's a problem" mails would still stick out like a soar thumb. The latter stick out very well when the former never arrive ;-) Obviously you are welcome to create such a patch for yourself. However for my needs this patch would be good. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 confused about what this change does. All it does is TO ALLOW (not require) the OP to disable the spurious and empty output from successful cron jobs. 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 useless in the situation where no output was generated *AND* the result code is positive. The more likely is that the OP starts deleting the messages unread each day and thus never sees an actual failure report. You obviously both make a good point. You don't want to get flooded by messages saying that everything is all right, but you do want to know when not every machine is able to send such a message. Would it help if "everything is all right"-mails would be easily discerned from messages saying "there is a problem"? IMHO that way you could move the "everything is all right" messages into a separate mailbox which would serve as a coarse check (there'd be about the same amount of new messages in it every day), while the "there's a problem" mails would still stick out like a soar thumb. I don't know how hard this would be, it'd probably be more work than the suggested patch. My 2 cents. -- Alban Hertroys "This person has performed an illegal operation, and will be shot down." !DSPAM:74,4679997c10034581612333! ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 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 this patch. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?
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 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... > > > > I second that notion. Isn't the *nix model to be quiet when everything > > is OK? > > So if it's quiet, is it because it's OK, or because it's too broken to > complain? If you want cronjobs to complain you just don't pipe them to /dev/null. Reporting that cronjobs setup not to write to stderr/stdout are not writing to stderr/stdout is plain nonsensical. Right now the only meaning of those emails is "mail delivery is working fine". -- How fortunate the man with none. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
I need to confgure Ati X700 to support dual layouts with the Xorg7.2
Dear reader ... I have been fighting for a while to configure the the xorg on my laptop Acer Ferrari 4005 Wmli, to be able to at least a clone of my laptop windowmaker on the Other monitor that i have attached to the TV-OUT but with no luck. If any one can help please do not hesitate. Thank you in advanced. -- Mohamed M. Maher ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
