Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:06:56 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "at" command and mail Message-ID: <201109031806.MAA26269@lariat.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK3pOo%2BzvHzrD-EdusWWA1VF4CokeFvLn-3qJvsFQ6xDAQ@mail.g mail.com> References: <201109031639.KAA25689@lariat.net> <CA%2BtpaK3pOo%2BzvHzrD-EdusWWA1VF4CokeFvLn-3qJvsFQ6xDAQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:55 AM 9/3/2011, Adam Vande More wrote: >If you redirect the output from the command to /dev/null or other >file, you shouldn't recieve an email unless you've also specified -m. True. But that's awkward, and if you have a job that runs more than once, it'd be convenient to be able to keep the output from each run. I'd like to see a configuration option to send the output from each "at" job to a file in a directory -- one per job, automatically named -- rather than sending it out as e-mail. Or just not to keep it at all. (This could still be overridden with -m, of course.) In short, I'm looking for the sort of flexibility that's already built into periodic.conf, which allows you to specify whether output is mailed, sent to a file, or sent to /dev/null by default. This would be useful for lots of applications, and especially for embedded work. --Brett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201109031806.MAA26269>