On Saturday, June 02, 2012 2:53:49 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On 3. Jan 2012, at 15:36 , John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 02, 2012 4:29:18 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic ema
On 3. Jan 2012, at 15:36 , John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, January 02, 2012 4:29:18 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there is
>> no output to this one can we
>>
>> 1) suppress the
On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:57:53 am Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:36:50AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> J> > why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given
> there is
> J> > no output to this one can we
> J> >
>
04.01.2012 13:57, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Does security_show_success="YES" suppress the security report entirely
(no mail sent), if no security related issues found?
Yes.
PS: I also prefer setting *_show_badconfig to 'yes' in case something is
just not working right.
--
Sphinx of black quartz
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:36:50AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
J> > why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there
is
J> > no output to this one can we
J> >
J> > 1) suppress the empty sections (to me that sounds a bit like a wrong
J> >
On Monday, January 02, 2012 4:29:18 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there is
> no output to this one can we
>
> 1) suppress the empty sections (to me that sounds a bit like a wrong
>return code or s
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb <
> bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there
>> is
>> no ou
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb <
bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there
> is
> no output to this one can we
>
> 1) suppress the empty sections (to me that sounds a bit l
On 2. Jan 2012, at 23:09 , Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 15:01, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> Looking at periodic(8) it says:
>>
>> Each script is required to exit with one of the following values:
>>
>> 0 The script has produced nothing notable in its output. The
>> _sho
On 01/02/2012 15:10, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Looking at the scripts, there are bugs where all of the
> beforementioned scripts would always be mute (because rc=0 is
> explicitly set at the bottom), unless _show_success was set to YES.
Take a look at /etc/defaults/periodic.conf
--
Y
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 15:01, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> Looking at periodic(8) it says:
>>
>> Each script is required to exit with one of the following values:
>>
>> 0 The script has produced nothing notable in its output. The
>>
On 01/02/2012 15:01, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> Looking at periodic(8) it says:
>
> Each script is required to exit with one of the following values:
>
> 0 The script has produced nothing notable in its output. The
>_show_success variable controls the masking of this out-
On 2. Jan 2012, at 21:56 , Holger Kipp wrote:
> Am 02.01.2012 um 22:33 schrieb "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
> :
>
>> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails
>
> It contains the info what has been done, so you know that the jobs have been
> performed
tch's goal is to
>>>> provide a generic, rc(5)-like infrastructure that would quiet down the
>>>> periodic emails for 120.clean-preserve .
>>>
>>> The periodic scripts are badly in need of attention, so effort in that
>>> area is much appreciat
frastructure that would quiet down the
>>> periodic emails for 120.clean-preserve .
>>
>> The periodic scripts are badly in need of attention, so effort in that
>> area is much appreciated.
>>
>> Regarding your patch, rather than copying functions from rc.subr,
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 14:14, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> How does this look for starters? The attached patch's goal is to
>> provide a generic, rc(5)-like infrastructure that would quiet down the
>> periodic emails for
On 01/02/2012 14:14, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> How does this look for starters? The attached patch's goal is to
> provide a generic, rc(5)-like infrastructure that would quiet down the
> periodic emails for 120.clean-preserve .
The periodic scripts are badly in need of attention
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Holger Kipp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 02.01.2012 um 22:33 schrieb "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
> :
>
>> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails
>
> It contains the info what has been done, so you know that the jobs have be
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there is
> no output to this one can we
>
> 1) suppress the empty sections (to me that sounds a bit like a wrong
> return code or something
Hi,
Am 02.01.2012 um 22:33 schrieb "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
:
> why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails
It contains the info what has been done, so you know that the jobs have been
performed correctly. If it does not contain the section headings, the jobs
might not
Hi,
why do we send all these empty headings for periodic emails or given there is
no output to this one can we
1) suppress the empty sections (to me that sounds a bit like a wrong
return code or something maybe?), and
2) add an option to suppress "empty" periodic emails entirel
21 matches
Mail list logo
