Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:22:24 +0200 From: Daniel Bond <db@danielbond.org> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? Message-ID: <46798C80.6020108@danielbond.org> In-Reply-To: <C677DC46-7CA1-4A12-AB69-4B461A4CD29A@svcolo.com> References: <E745210E-A5B8-48E0-B6A8-A467F1054BD7@svcolo.com> <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> <a9f4a3860706201040u1f7e89eane68a7588cd017b96@mail.gmail.com> <44A91A3E-96EA-46F3-ABE4-01C4662B5A5F@svcolo.com> <a9f4a3860706201256s5c4543d6t93448c9c12cf3439@mail.gmail.com> <C677DC46-7CA1-4A12-AB69-4B461A4CD29A@svcolo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----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 "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGeYyAUR3pKhqN0EoRAgbUAJ93Rq0FwoYRZfL2PnUGaDHwl8jbbgCfcc22 uUkANgaHrRsY9RQrDKLUbKk= =N5D4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46798C80.6020108>