On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 01:14:23AM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > On Jan 08 22:45:59, [email protected] wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:21:03PM +0000, Craig Skinner wrote: > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142031621606691&w=2 > > > > > > > i don;t see the discrepancy. crontab(5) explains how MAILTO works > > Not precisely: > > If MAILTO is defined and non-empty, mail is sent to the user > ^^^^^^^ > so named. If MAILTO is defined but empty (MAILTO = ""), no > mail will be sent. Otherwise mail is sent to the owner of > ^^^^^^^ > the crontab. > > > Mail is NOT necessarily sent. > That's the nitpicking here. > > > and cron(8) (jan meant cron.8 not cron.1, right?) > > right; sorry. > > > explains the conditions under which mail is generated. > > there is enough there already, no? > > Arguably. > > crontab.5 says "mail is sent" if I define MAILTO. > That's not necessarily true. > > Jan >
but cron(8) very clearly describes the conditions under which mail is generated. MAILTO is just a way of tweaking where that mail goes. i see your point, but honestly what we have now seems a sane balance between providing enough info and avoiding repitition. we have to expect that people reading crontab(5) will have read cron(8) too. yes it says "mail is sent". but we've already been clear about the conditions. this diff just makes the text longer. jmc
