On Tuesday 09 October 2001 12:10 pm, Jim Trocki wrote: > having no alert sent during a period which is not specified is certainly > not a bug, that's exactly how it's supposed to work. you either want to > suppress an alert during a time or you don't, and that's what the code > does. though i don't believe it is a bug, maybe there is room for an > added variable to control the behavior of upalerts in situations where > they happen when there are no defined periods, something to the effect of > "never suppress an upalert".
That's fair, I'm happy to stop calling it a 'bug', and call it more of a 'feature'. But I would like such a configurable keyword, because upalerts are useful and it's nice to know if something comes back on its own and you don't have to worry about it anymore, even if it is outside the period of time you would care about the service going out. If it was coded up, would you accept the patch? andrew
